fttitamttg  of  fflbtrago 


UC-NRLF 


5fi7 


THE  SUBVENTION 

IN  THE  STATE  FINANCES 

OF  PENNSYLVANIA 


A  DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED  TO  THE  FACULTY 

OF  THE  GRADUATE  SCHOOL  OF  ARTS  AND  LITERATURE 

IN  CANDIDACY  FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF 

DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 

DEPARTMENT  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY 


BY 


FREDERIC  B.  CARVER 


GEORGE  BANTA  PUBLISHING  COMPANY 
MENASHA,  WISCONSIN 

£919 


EXCHANGE 


2ty*  Xtrtttmttg  of 


THE  SUBVENTION 

IN  THE  STATE  FINANCES 

OF  PENNSYLVANIA 


A  DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED  TO  THE  FACULTY 

OF  THE  GRADUATE  SCHOOL  OF  ARTS  AND  LITERATURE 

IN  CANDIDACY  FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF 

DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 

DEPARTMENT  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY 


BY 

FREDERIC  B.  CARVER 


OOp  01011*8***  ?"" 

GEORGE  BANTA  PUBLISHING  COMPANY 
MENASHA,  WISCONSIN 

1919 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  I 

INTRODUCTION 

PAGE 

The  Division  of  Functions  between  State  and  Local  Governments 1 

Occasions  Giving  Rise  to  Subventions 4 

The  Plan  of  this  Essay 7 

CHAPTER  II 

THE  DIVISION  OF  GOVERNMENTAL  FUNCTIONS  AND  OF  REVENUE 
RESOURCES  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

The  Division  of  Functions  between  the  Central  and  the  Local  Governments 9 

The  Division  of  Revenue  Resources 15 

CHAPTER  III 
THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  SUBVENTIONS 

Definition  and  Classification  of  Grants  and  Subventions 20 

The  Financial  Policy  of  Pennsylvania 22 

Grants  for  Education 23 

Grants  for  Charity 29 

Grants  in  Aid  for  Roads  and  Bridges 32 

Other  Grants  and  Subventions 35 

Conclusions  arid  Summary 35 

CHAPTER  IV 

THE  BEGINNING  OF  PERMANENT  ANNUAL  GRANTS  FOR  EDUCATION 
AND  FOR  CHARITY 

The  Financial  Policy  of  the  State,  1826-1843 37 

Grants  for  Charity 43 

The  Establishment  of  the  Permanent  Annual  Subvention  to  Common  Schools....      55 

Permanent  and  Occasional  Subventions  to  Academies,  Seminaries  and  Colleges 72 

Miscellaneous  Occasional  Grants 78 

CHAPTER  V 

THE  HISTORY  OF  SUBVENTIONS  FROM  1844  TO  1873 

The  Financial  Policy  of  the  State 80 

The  Grant  in  Aid  to  Common  Schools 86 

Subventions  to  Normal  Schools 102 

Subventions  to  Other  Educational  Institutions 110 

Subventions  to  Private  Charitable  Institutions 114 

Miscellaneous  Subventions 137 

CHAPTER  VI 
THE  RELATION  OF  STATE  AND  LOCAL  FINANCES,  1874  TO  1916 

The  Distribution  of  Governmental  Functions 138 

The  Development  of  State  Taxes  on  Corporations 140 

The  Equalization  of  Revenue  Resources  between  the  State  and  the  Localities 147 


11  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

CHAPTER  VII 

THE  SUBVENTIONS  FOR  EDUCATIONS,  1874  TO  1916 

The  State  System  of  Common  Schools  in  1874 153 

The  Financing  of  the  School  System 155 

Causes  for  the  Increase  of  the  State  Subventions 161 

The  Distribution  of  the  Subvention  to  Common  Schools 163 

Regulations  Imposed  by  the  State  upon  Districts  Receiving  the  Subvention  to 

Common  Schools 170 

State  Aid  to  High  Schools 185 

The  Subvention  to  Normal  Schools;  Its  Abandonment  for  State  Ownership 187 

The    Subventions    for    Higher    Education 195 

Miscellaneous    Subventions    for    Education 196 

Summary  and  Conclusions:  Subventions  for  Education 200 

CHAPTER  VIII 

MINOR  GRANTS  TO  LOCAL  AUTHORITIES 
Subventions  for  the  Encouragement  of  Agriculture  and  for  the  Protection  of 

Life  and  Property 204 

The  Subvention  for  the  Construction  and  Maintenance  of  Highways 206 

CHAPTER  IX 

SUBVENTIONS  FOR  CHARITY,  1874  TO  1916 

The  Growth  of  The  Subventions  for  Charity 212 

The  Constitutionality  of  the  Grants 222 

The  Effect  of  the  Subvention  Policy  upon  the  Development  of  State  Institutions. .  228 

Grants  for  Permanent  Improvements 238 

State  Subventions  to  Counties 239 

Distribution  of  the  Subvention  to  Charitable  Institutions 241 

Should  the  Subvention  to  Private  Charitable  Institutions  be  Discontinued 243 

APPENDICES 
TABLE  I 

Subventions  for  Education  and  to  Charitable  Institutions,  1826  to  1843 247 

TABLE  II 
Total  of  all  Subventions,  Classified  According  to  the  Service  Aided,  1844  to  1873..     248 

TABLE  III  A 

Subventions  Paid  from  the  Pennsylvania  State  Treasury  for  Education,  Classi- 
fied According  to  Purpose,  1874  to  1893 250 

TABLE  III  B 

Subventions  Paid  from  the  Pennsylvania  State  Treasury  for  Education,  Classi- 
fied According  to  Purpose,  1894  to  1916 251 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 253 

INDEX...  259 


CHAPTER  I 
INTRODUCTION 

THE  DIVISION  or  FUNCTIONS  BETWEEN  STATE  AND  LOCAL  GOVERNMENTS 

It  is  a  fundamental  principle  of  the  distribution  of  powers  within 
the  several  states  of  the  federal  union  that  local  governments,  such  as 
the  city,  county,  township  and  school-district,  have  no  sphere  of  action 
that  they  may  claim  as  their  own  and  upon  which  the  state  may  not 
encroach.  Local  governments  are  the  creatures  of  the  state.1  Their 
dependence  upon  constitutional  provisions  or  upon  enactments  of  the 
state  legislature  for  their  very  existence  gives  rise  to  wide  variations  in 
the  amount  of  power  and  in  the  number  of  functions  that  they  exercise. 
It  also  makes  readjustments  in  the  division  of  powers  between  state  and 
locality  both  easy  and  rapid.  If  the  legislature  decides,  for  example, 
that  the  counties  are  caring  inadequately  for  the  insane  it  may  remove 
the  service  to  the  realm  of  state  administration  one  year  and  return  it 
to  the  counties  or  school-districts  the  next.  Or,  if  a  new  service  is 
created,  such  as  the  provision  of  free  industrial  education,  it  is  possible 
for  the  legislature  either  to  require  one  of  the  subordinate  governmental 
units  to  assume  it  or  to  provide  for  direct  state  administration.  In 
short,  the  local  governments  are  completely  at  the  mercy  of  the  state 
legislature  with  respect  to  the  functions  they  may  exercise. 

The  legislature  may,  however,  be  restrained  by  the  constitution  of 
the  state  from  interfering  too  extensively  in  local  affairs,  and  it  is  not 
unusual  to  find  in  state  constitutions  grants  of  power  directly  to  the  local 
units.  Moreover,  a  less  tangible  but  equally  significant  restraint  is 
exercised  by  political  custom  and  by  the  ingrained  opinions  of  the  people 
as  to  what  are  "local,"  and  what  "state"  affairs.  Public  opinion  would 
not,  in  the  United  States,  permit  complete  centralization,  nor,  on  the 
other  hand,  complete  decentralization. 

The  many  legal  enactments  that  fix  the  limits  of  local  government 
are,  of  course,  influenced  to  a  great  extent  by  ideas  and  ideals  that  are 
the  result  of  many  hundreds  of  years  of  Anglo-American  experience  in 
local  self-government.  But  aside  from  these  intangible  influences,  which 
have  their  effects  upon  all  governmental  practices,  the  following  factors 
determine  more  immediately  the  distribution  of  functions  between  central 
and  local  authorities:  (1)  the  success  or  failure  of  the  state  in  administer- 

1  Dillon,  Municipal  Corporations,  (5  ed.),  I,  Sec.  33,  pp.  61  ff. 


tc.-      -  "THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 


ing  the  services2  that  it  undertakes;  (2)  the  success  or  failure  of  local 
authorities  in  the  administration  of  the  services  assigned  them;  (3)  the 
scope  of  the  service,  whether  state-wide  or  local  in  its  application;  (4) 
the  desirability  of  state-wide  uniformity  or  of  local  variations  in  rendering 
the  service;3  (5)  the  advantage  that  ruling  political  parties  may  derive 
from  the  division  of  power;  (6)  and,  finally,  the  relative  revenue  resources 
of  the  state  and  of  the  local  governments. 

The  last  factor  mentioned  as  determining  the  division  of  governmen- 
tal functions  has  received  scant  consideration  at  the  hands  of  writers  on 
political  science.  This  is  largely  due  to  the  way  in  which  it  operates. 
Ordinarily,  we  do  not  find  that  a  surplus  of  state  revenue  is  set  forth  as  a 
reason  why  a  given  service,  say  the  building  of  highways,  should  be 
undertaken  by  the  central  rather  than  by  the  local  governments.  But 
the  existence  of  a  surplus  of  state  revenue  is  an  ever-present  temptation 
to  legislatures  to  expand  existing  state  functions  or  to  discover  new  ones. 
The  most  notable  example  of  such  results  following  the  development  of  a 
surplus  is  to  be  found  in  the  financial  history  of  the  United  States  from 
1880  to  1893.  No  one  today  doubts  that  the  origin  of  the  present 
extravagant  pension  system  and  of  the  equally  extravagant  and  fun- 
damentally less  justifiable  appropriations  for  the  improvement  of  rivers 
and  harbors  is  to  be  traced,  in  part,  to  the  surplus  national  revenues  of 
the  'eighties.  Once  such  a  service  is  taken  up  it  is,  of  course,  almost 
impossible  for  the  government  to  abandon  it,  and  it,  therefore,  con- 
tinues as  a  state,  or  national,  or  local  service.  In  time  people  usually 
come  to  regard  it  as  necessarily  adapted  to  administration  by  the  gov- 
ernmental unit  that,  because  of  its  revenue  resources,  was  able  to 
support  it,  at  the  time  demand  for  the  service  appeared. 

When,  however,  a  state  employs  the  general  property  tax  for  the 
support  of  both  central  and  local  governments,  revenue  resources  are 
less  likely  to  determine  the  distribution  of  functions.  For,  if  the  state 
revenues  are  raised  by  a  surtax  upon  local  assessments,  there  can  be  no 

2  The  term  "service"  will  be  used  in  this  essay  to  include  the  exercise  of  any  func- 
tion of  government  in  which  public  authorities  furnish  satisfactions  or  wealth  directly 
to  the  community.    Thus  education  is  a  service;  the  administration  of  po6r  relief  is  a 
service;  the  administration  of  justice  is  a  service;  so  too,  of  course,  the  provision  of 
water,  lighting  and  drainage  are  services.    But  the  work  of  an  officer  whose  duties 
relate  solely  to  inter-departmental  affairs  or  of  one  who  is  concerned  solely  with  general 
governmental  affairs  is  excluded.    The  members  of  the  state  legislature  do  not  provide 
a  service  in  the  sense  in  which  the  word  will  hereafter  be  employed. 

3  In  some  services,  notably  in  education,  both  uniformity  and  variation  are  neces- 
sary. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  3 

surplus  in  the  state  treasury  that  does  not  accrue  from  the  same  tax 
that  also  supports  local  governments.  Hence  there  can  be  no  preference 
on  grounds  of  superior  revenue  resources  for  selecting  either  state  or 
locality  to  administer  a  given  service. 

Now  it  not  infrequently  happens  that  the  various  factors  enumerated 
at  the  beginning  of  this  chapter  as  determining  the  division  of  functions 
between  state  and  local  governments  are  in  conflict.  The  state  govern- 
ment may  have  an  exceedingly  bad  record  in  the  administration  of  the 
services  it  undertakes  to  provide,  while  the  record  of  the  counties  and 
cities  may  be  good.  Yet  the  state  may  have  the  funds  to  undertake  new 
services  and  the  localities  may  not.  Or  the  localities  may  have  little 
revenue  and  bad  records  in  administration,  but  the  service  demanding 
expansion  may  be  so  intimately  connected  with  local  political  life,  and  so 
heterogeneous  in  its  nature  that  complete  state  control  will  not  be 
tolerated. 

Again  it  may  happen,  as  is  the  case  with  elementary  and  secondary 
education,  that  the  service  is  one  in  which  there  is  a  state-wide  interest, 
and  in  which  a  certain  amount  of  uniformity  is  demanded,  but  in  which 
the  need  for  variation  and  local  control  is  very  great.  Here  local  admin- 
istration with  central  control  is  necessary.  Education  is  obviously  not 
the  only  function  of  the  state  in  which 'the  necessity  for  central  super- 
vision is  present.  The  state  as  a  governmental  unit  representing  the 
larger  community,  needs  to  have  some  voice  in  the  administration  of 
roads,  in  general  poor  relief,  in  the  care  and  maintenance  of  defectives 
and  in  sanitation. 

When  the  duality  of  interest  just  mentioned  exists,  the  state  fre- 
quently permits  or  requires  the  locality  to  provide  the  service  and  to  pay 
the  cost  out  of  the  local  treasury,  but  the  conditions  under  which  the 
service  is  rendered,  the  standards  that  shall  be  maintained,  and  even  the 
amount  of  money  to  be  expended  upon  it,  are  fixed  by  legislative  enact- 
ment. These  assigned  services  are  very  common  and  usually  include 
police  in  the  narrower  sense,  the  administration  of  justice,  and  very 
frequently,  elementary  education,  road  making,  and  poor  relief. 

But  the  difficulty  inherent  in  all  assigned  services  is  that  while  the 
central  government  may  prescribe  by  law,  and  in  great  detail,  the  sort 
of  service  required,  and  may  set  up  standards  of  performance,  it  has  no 
effective  means  for  controlling  the  local  administration  and  of  compelling 
observance  of  the  law.  Very  often  popular  notions  of  liberty  and  free- 


4  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

dom  in  local  government  prevent  the  establishment  of  the  central  super- 
vision necessary  to  attain  these  standards. 

OCCASIONS  GIVING  RISE  TO  SUBVENTIONS 

The  problem  is  how  to  attain  the  proper  amount  of  central  super- 
vision to  insure  adequate  performance  of  services  that  seem  best  admin- 
istered by  local  governments.  In  England  this  problem  has  been  solved 
to  a  considerable  extent  by  means  of  grants  in  aid.  The  central  authori- 
ties have  succeeded  in  obtaining  the  right  to  prescribe,  and  to  a  great 
extent  to  enforce  the  observance  of  proper  standards  of  performance  in 
local  affairs  by  offering  substantial  financial  aid  to  those  municipalities 
that  live  up  to  the  requirements,  and  by  refusing  it  to  those  that  do  not.4 
In  the  United  States,  the  attempt  has  been  made  to  accomplish  the  same 
result  in  the  case  of  the  common  schools.  In  many  states  the  central 
government  pays  a  liberal  amount  toward  the  support  of  local  schools 
only  when  the  schools  are  in  operation  a  certain  number  of  months  in 
each  year,  and  when  competent  teachers  are  employed.5  One  of  the 
powerful  reasons,  then,  for  the  existence  of  a  grant  of  money  from  a 
superior  to  an  inferior  authority  is  the  opportunity  such  grant  affords 
for  central  supervision. 

A  second  reason  for  the  establishment  of  a  grant  from  the  central 
treasury  is  suggested  by  the  relative  revenue 'resources  of  the  state  and 
of  local  governments.  If  the  state  is  well  provided  with  revenue  while 
the  local  governments  are  not,  and  if  the  services  that  demand  expansion 
are  those  that  seem  likely  to  remain  under  local  control,  one  of  the  easiest 
solutions  of  the  difficulty  is  a  subvention  from  the  central  government 
for  the  support  of  these  services. 

Thus,  in  England,  in  1874,  the  conservatives  on  returning  to  power 
advocated  the  use  of  a  part  of  the  surplus  national  revenues  for  the  relief 
of  local  taxation.6  The  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  argued  at  this 
time  that  property  subject  to  local  direct  taxation  was  greatly  in  need 
of  relief.  A  grant  from  the  national  government  would  not  only  afford 
this  relief  but  would  also  place  local  taxation  on  a  more  equitable  foot- 
ing.7 One  of  the  purposes,  therefore,  of  the  English  system  of  grants  in 

4  Webb,  Grants  In  Aid,  pp.  5-6. 

6  Fairlie,  Local  Government,  p.  220. 

*  Grice,  National  and  Local  Finance,  p.  56. 

7  Idem,  pp.  56-57. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  5 

aid  has  been  from  the  very  beginning  the  relief  of  local  tax  payers.8 
In  brief,  the  grants  in  aid  have  been  used  in  England,  since  their  inception 
to  equalize  the  burden  of  supporting  the  various  governmental  services, 
and  to  secure  central  control. 

Two  other  methods  of  solving  the  problem  of  equalization  were 
possible  in  England  at  the  date  mentioned.  Either  certain  of  the  duties 
of  local  authorities  might  have  been  transferred  to  the  national  govern- 
ment or  certain  revenues  might  have  been  transferred  from  the  national 
to  the  local  governments.  The  former  alternative  was  at  once  rejected 
by  the  ministry  in  1874.9  The  latter  was  accepted  in  the  main  by  Mr. 
Goschen  in  the  reforms  which  he  introduced  while  Chancellor  of  the 
Exchequer  in  1889.10  Because  of  the  great  inequality  that  existed  hi 
the  distribution  of  the  grants,  and  because  of  the  continual  grasping  of 
the  local  rate  payers  for  additional  grants,  assigned  revenues  were  sub- 
stituted for  subventions.  Certain  grants,  mainly  in  aid  of  elementary 
education  and  of  industrial  and  reformatory  schools,  were  retained.11 
In  lieu  of  the  grants  the  local  governments  were  given  the  greater  part 
of  the  revenues  from  excise  licenses  and  one-half  the  probate  duties.12 

Similarly  hi  the  United  States,  it  is  not  uncommon  for  the  state  to 
return  to  the  local  governments  the  revenues  of  certain  taxes  which  are 
either  assessed,  or  both  assessed  and  collected  by  the  state.  An  example 
of  such  practice  is  found  in  the  Massachusetts  corporation  taxes  and  in 
the  Iowa  railroad  taxes.  The  question  may  be  raised  at  this  point  why 
either  a  grant  in  aid  from  the  central  treasury  or  the  distribution  of 
centrally  collected  revenues  should  be  adopted.  Why  should  the  central 
government  not  relinquish  certain  taxes  to  the  localities,  allowing  them 
both  to  administer  these  taxes  and  to  receive  the  revenue  from  them? 
Several  conditions  may  prevent  such  an  arrangement.  The  localities 
may  not  be  able  successfully  to  administer  the  taxes  which  yield  most 
abundantly  under  state  control.  This  is  true  for  taxes  upon  nearly  all 
transportation  companies,  and  in  a  less  degree  for  corporation  taxes  in 
general.  Or  the  tax  may  be  like  the  inheritance  tax,  uncertain  in  yield 

•Grice,  p.  11. 

9  Idem,  p.  56. 

10  Idem,  p.  81. 

11  Idem,  p.  90. 

12  Idem,  p.  82. 


0  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

in  any  given  year  for  a  small  unit,  but  relatively  steady  when  collected 
over  a  wider  area.  If  the  policy  of  distributing  the  proceeds  of  certain 
taxes  is  adopted,  the  question  of  the  proper  basis  for  such  distribution 
is  immediately  raised  and  no  satisfactory  solution  for  this  problem  has 
as  yet  been  discovered. 

A  third  reason  for  the  existence  of  the  grant  in  aid  is  that  it  permits 
an  equalization  of  the  burden  of  supporting  a  given  service.  The  sub- 
vention for  common  schools  illustrates  this  point.  It  is  commonly  con- 
ceded that  every  child  within  the  state  has  a  right  to  competent  instruc- 
tion in  elementary  subjects.  More  important  still,  the  community  as  a 
whole  has  an  interest  in  seeing  that  he  receives  such  instruction.  But 
many  localities  do  not  have  within  their  jurisdiction  sufficient  taxable 
property  to  permit  the  maintenance  of  good  schools  without  the  imposi- 
tion of  oppressive  taxes.  Now  by  means  of  a  grant  from  the  state 
treasury  funds  collected  from  all  the  communities  within  the  state 
according  to  ability  to  pay,  are  then  distributed  according  to  need.  The 
richer  counties  are  thus  compelled  to  aid  their  poorer  neighbors.  The 
justification  of  this  redistribution  of  the  burden  is  to  be  found  in  the 
state-wide  interest  in  education.  The  widespread  adoption  of  state, 
subventions  for  common  schools  in  the  United  States  is  an  acknowledg- 
ment of  the  obligation  of  the  state  to  aid  in  providing  the  children  of 
poorer  districts  with  an  opportunity  for  a  minimum  of  education. 

The  subsidizing  of  local  governmental  authorities  is  not,  in  practice, 
the  only  type  of  subvention.  In  New  York  City,  and  in  California,  as 
in  several  other  states,  large  amounts  are  paid  from  the  public  treasury 
to  private,  or  quasi-public  corporations,  or  to  individuals  that  perform 
a  service  which  is  more  or  less  public  in  its  nature.  A  private  hospital 
that  takes  charity  patients  performs  such  a  service;  so  also  does  a  private 
school  that  admits  promising  students  of  limited  means  tuition-free,  or 
on  easier  terms  than  are  required  of  the  children  of  the  well-to-do.  And 
the  application  of  the  principle  is  not  limited  to  schools  and  colleges  that 
remit  tuition,  but  usually  applies  as  well  to  all  educational  institutions 
that  are  not  operated  as  money-making  ventures.  Hence,  colleges  com- 
monly receive  tax  exemption  for  all  or  a  part  of  their  equipment. 

To  summarize :  The  subvention  has  been  used  in  England  and  in  the 
United  States  to  equalize  revenue  resources  between  state  (central)  and 
local  governments;  to  equalize  the  burden  of  supporting  a  given  service 
between  different  localities;  and  to  gain  for  the  central  authorities  power 


THE  SUBVENTION  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  7 

of  supervision  over  local  administration.  Finally  in  the  United  States 
it  has  been  used  to  aid  semi-public  institutions  of  an  eleemosynary 
character. 

But,  although  the  subvention  has  been  thus  employed  in  England, 
opinion  there  is  more  or  less  divided  as  to  its  desirability.13  The  reforms 
of  1889  greatly  limited  the  number  of  grants.  In  the  United  States 
almost  no  systematic  examination  of  the  working  of  the  state  subventions 
has  been  published.14  It  is  with  a  view  to  making  such  an  examination 
that  the  history  of  the  Pennsylvania  system  of  subventions  is  under- 
taken. The  reasons  for  selecting  the  Pennsylvania  system  rather  than 
that  of  some  other  state  are  three.  In  the  first  place  the  aggregate 
amount  of  the  subventions  is  large.  In  1913  the  grants  amounted  to 
upwards  of  $12,000,000,  or  about  40  per  cent  of  the  total  payments  from 
the  state  treasury.  In  the  second  place,  Pennsylvania  has  developed 
exclusive  state  taxes  upon  corporate  wealth  to  an  extent  not  equaled  in 
any  other  state  that  also  has  an  important  system  of  subventions,  thus 
giving  rise  to  large  state  revenues — often  surpluses — that  make  sub- 
ventions possible.  Finally,  a  great  deal  of  criticism  of  the  state  sub- 
ventions to  privately  owned  charitable  institutions  has  appeared  in  the 
press  and  in  papers  read  at  the  meetings  of  the  National  Conferences 
of  Charities  and  Corrections. 

THE  PLAN  or  THIS  ESSAY 

The  plan  of  this  essay  is  first  to  set  forth  the  two  fundamental  con- 
ditions that  govern  the  development  of  a  subvention  system:  (1)  The 
distribution  of  powers  and  duties  between  the  state  and  its  subdivisions, 
and  (2)  the  distribution  of  revenue  resources  between  the  state  and  the 
local  governments.  These  two  points  will  be  treated  briefly  in  Chapter 
II.  The  remaining  and  larger  part  of  the  essay  will  deal  with  changes 
in  these  two  fundamental  conditions,  and  with  the  historical  development 
and  the  administration  of  the  grants  as  they  appear. 

The  financial  history  of  the  state  may  be  conveniently  divided  into 
five  periods.  The  first  begins  with  1776  and  ends  with  assumption  of 
the  state's  debt  by  the  federal  government.  The  second  dividing  line 
may  be  drawn  when  the  internal  improvements  were  begun  in  1826, 
and  the  third  period  is  identical  with  the  growth  of  the  state  system  of 
canals  and  roads.  The  fourth  period  begins  definitely  with  the  financial 

13  For  criticism,  see  Webb,  Chs.  Ill  and  IV. 

14  See,  however,  Wisconsin  Tax  Commission,  Special  Report  (1911),  Ch.  V. 


8  THE  SUBVENTION  OF  PENNSYLVANIA 

crisis  of  1840-1842,  and  concludes  with  the  adoption  of  the  present  con- 
stitution in  1873.  The  period  1874  to  1916,  while  easily  divisible  into 
several  shorter  periods,  may  be  treated  as  a  unit,  since  there  have  been 
no  radical  changes  in  the  financial  policies  of  the  state.  These  periods 
will  receive  consideration  in  separate  chapters. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  DIVISION  OF  GOVERNMENTAL  FUNCTIONS  AND  OF  REVENUE 
RESOURCES  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

THE  DIVISION  or  FUNCTIONS  BETWEEN  THE  CENTRAL  AND  THE 
LOCAL  GOVERNMENTS 

As  was  pointed  out  in  the  preceding  chapter,  the  development  of  a 
system  of  subventions  is  conditioned  by  the  division  of  functions  between 
the  central  and  the  local  governments.  Unless  the  local  governments 
have  numerous  functions  to  perform  state  aid  is  quite  unlikely  to  develop. 
It  is  necessary,  therefore,  to  ascertain  the  division  of  governmental 
functions  in  Pennsylvania  before  proceeding  to  discuss  the  development 
of  the  state  subventions.  Again,  as  has  been  pointed  out,  a  system  of 
subventions  is  not  often  found  unless  the  central  treasury  is  amply  pro- 
vided with  revenue.  It  is  necessary,  therefore,  to  ascertain  the  relative 
revenue  resources  of  the  state  and  of  the  local  governments  in  Pennsyl- 
vania before  discussing  the  development  of  the  subvention  system. 

It  must  not  be  concluded,  however,  that  subventions  never  come 
into  existence  when  the  localities  have  few  duties  to  perform  and  when 
the  central  governments  are  not  in  possession  of  overflowing  treasuries. 
The  state  subventions  to  common  schools,  in  the  United  States,  are 
standing  proofs  that  special  levies  may  be  made  upon  general  property 
solely  for  the  purpose  of  making  a  subvention  whose  chief  object  is  to 
insure  a  certain  minimum  of  excellence  in  the  performance  of  a  given 
service  or  to  equalize  the  burden  of  a  service  between  localities.  This 
fact  does  not,  however,  obviate  the  necessity  of  studying  the  division  of 
functions  and  revenue  resources,  since  equalization  of  burdens  between 
localities  and  central  control  to  secure  standards  are  only  two  of  the 
purposes  for  which  subventions  are  made. 

Like  most  American  colonists  the  first  settlers  in  Pennsylvania  were 
jealous  of  all  encroachment  upon  their  political  privileges  by  the  pro- 
vincial government.  Quarrels  having  to  do  with  the  amount  and 
methods  of  raising  revenue  and  other  political  matters  sprang  up  between 
the  popularly  elected  assembly  and  the  governors  or  their  deputies  and 
made  the  people  hostile  to  central  authority.  Again,  in  Pennsylvania 
to  a  greater  extent  than  in  any  other  colony,  differences  of  language,  of 
nationality,  of  religious  belief,  and  of  political  tenets  served  to  accentuate 
the  isolation  that  a  lack  of  communication  and  the  pioneer  environ- 
ment naturally  produced.  These  conditions  together  with  the  feeling 

9 


10  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

of  local  self-sufficiency,  so  common  in  frontier  communities,  tended  to 
prevent  the  growth  of  solidarity  of  interests  and  to  array  one  sect  or  one 
nationality  against  the  others.  Under  such  conditions  a  powerful  state 
government  could  have  been  built  up  only  by  one  party  gaining  complete 
ascendancy.  To  a  certain  extent  the  Quakers  may  be  looked  upon  as 
the  party  in  power  down  to  the  Revolution.  But  their  frequent  quarrels 
with  the  governors  of  the  province  would  have  prevented  the  develop- 
ment of  a  strong  central  government,  even  though  other  forces  had 
not  worked  against  such  an  eventuation. 

After  the  colonies  had  separated  from  England,  the  tendency  for  the 
people  to  look  with  suspicion  upon  governments  that  were  distant  and 
to  regard  with  favor  the  exercise  of  authority  by  those  that  were  near 
and  administered  by  their  neighbors,  increased  rather  than  diminished.1 
The  relative  influence  which  should  be  assigned  to  the  spirit  of  local 
independence,  in  Pennsylvania,  in  determining  the  causes  that  resulted 
in  the  delegation  of  a  large  share  of  the  business  of  government  to  the 
localities,  cannot  be  accurately  measured.  Neither  can  we  estimate 
the  effect  of  this  tendency  in  counteracting  the  opposing  principle  of 
state  interference,  which  grew  steadily  throughout  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury. But  it  is  one  of  the  forces  that  must  be  kept  constantly  in  mind 
in  explaining  fiscal  and  political  arrangements  between  the  state  and  the 
minor  civil  divisions. 

From  the  legal  point  of  view  there  is  no  "proper,"  or  one  best  division 
of  powers  between  central  and  local  authorities.  There  are  certain  func- 
tions of  government,  of  which  diplomatic  intercourse  with  foreign  nations 
is  an  example,  that  can  scarcely  be  locally  administered  under  any  cir- 
cumstances. With  respect  to  such  functions  as  the  military,  the  admin- 
istration of  justice,  and  the  management  of  state  revenues,  upon  the 
proper  performance  of  which  the  central  government  is  dependent  for 
its  very  existence,  the  local  authorities  can  act  only  as  agents  of  the 
superior  power.  The  demand  for  uniformity  is  imperative  and  the 
localities  can  have  little  discretion.  Aside  from  a  limited  number  of 
such  exceptions,  however,  there  are  no  functions  of  government  that 
might  not  be  exercised  by  the  localities;  and  in  the  following  discussion 
it  will  be  assumed  that  the  terms  "local  services"  and  "state  services" 
carry  no  implication  of  a  necessary  division  of  powers. 

The  first  source  of  information  as  to  the  actual  division  of  power  in 
any  given  state  is  the  body  of  fundamental  laws  governing  it.  In  the 

1  Merriam,  A  History  of  American  Political  Theories,  pp.  78-79. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  11 

state  this  is  the  constitution,  and  in  the  province  the  royal  charter  or 
other  fundamental  agreements.  The  next  source  is,  of  course,  the  acts 
of  the  legislature  establishing  and  giving  power  to  local  governments. 
In  Pennsylvania,  before  1776,  we  have  to  look  to  the  charter  given  by 
Charles  II  to  Penn,  to  certain  subsequent  documents,  such  as  the  Frames 
of  Government,  and  to  the  acts  of  the  Assembly  for  information  con- 
cerning the  political  status  of  the  localities.  Now,  although  Pennsyl- 
vania was  founded  by  a  religious  reformer,  who  belonged  to  a  sect  that 
advocated  many  specific  departures  from  the  religious  practices,  social 
customs,  and  political  methods  then  existing  in  England,  the  government 
that  he  set  up  in  the  new  world  followed  closely  the  English  model.  In 
many  instances,  the  English  system  of  local  government  was  copied 
with  remarkable  faithfulness  but  in  other  cases  the  new  environment 
made  changes  from  the  older  arrangements  necessary. 

The  charter  that  Penn  received  from  Charles  II  gave  the  proprietor 
power  to  establish  such  local  authorities  as  the  town,  county,  borough, 
and  city.2  Three  important  local  units  were  actually  established.  The 
county  was  made  the  principal  unit  of  local  government,  and,  in  the 
beginning,  the  county  court  was  the  principal  administrative  body.3 
The  township  did  not  become  important  as  an  administrative  authority 
until  late  in  the  eighteenth  century.4  While  Philadelphia  remained  for 
many  years  the  only  incorporated  city  in  the  province,  boroughs  were 
also  incorporated  and,  of  course,  developed  in  greater  numbers  than  did 
the  cities.  It  is  with  the  division  of  powers  between  the  province,  on  the 
one  hand,  and  the  counties,  the  cities  and  the  boroughs,  on  the  other, 
that  we  have  here  to  deal.5 

The  governmental  machinery  of  the  province  of  Pennsylvania,  like 
that  of  the  other  colonies,  was  very  simple.  As  Dewey  has  pointed  out 
in  discussing  colonial  expenditures,6  these  frontier  communities  felt  the 
need  of  government  very  slightly.  Public  offices  were  few;  public  works 
were  undeveloped;  and  with  the  exception  of  poor  relief  of  the  crudest 

2  Charters  and  Laws,  1682-1700,  pp.  85-86. 

3  Howard,  A  n  Introduction  to  the  Local  Constitutional  History  of  the  United  States, 
pp.  371  ff. 

4  Idem,  p.  385. 

5  For  a  discussion  of  the  development  of  the  Pennsylvania  county  see  Howard, 
Pt.  Ill,  Ch.  VIII,  Sec.  iii,  and  Gould,  "Local  Self-Government  in  Pennsylvania," 
(Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies,  I);  for  Philadelphia  see  Allinson  and  Penrose, 
Philadelphia,   1681-1887;   for  the  burroughs,   Holcomb,  "Pennsylvania  Boroughs," 
(Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies,  IV). 

6  Financial  History  of  the  United  States,  (1st  ed.),  p.  9. 


12  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

sort,  public  charity  and  public  assistance  were  non-existent.  Provincial 
authorities  had  chiefly  to  do  with  the  more  fundamental  functions  of 
government,  without  which  organized  society  cannot  exist,  and  with 
the  provision  of  soldiers  for  Colonial  and  Indian  wars.  The  military 
operations  of  Pennsylvania,  Quaker  colony  though  it  was,  assumed  at 
times  predominant  importance  in  provincial  finance.  In  the  war  against 
the  French  and  their  Indian  allies,  during  the  years  1756  to  1763,  the 
province  expended  about  £500,000.7  In  addition  to  its  expenditures 
for  war  the  colony  paid  out  smaller  amounts  in  bribes  and  peace-money 
in  order  to  prevent  Indian  attacks.8  In  time  of  peace  the  provincial 
authorities  were  relatively  inactive.  Ordinary  expenses,  in  1767,  in- 
cluded little  beyond  the  payment  of  modest  salaries  to  the  governor, 
to  the  judges  of  the  supreme  court,  and  to  the  assemblymen,  and  a  few 
minor  payments  to  unimportant  state  officials.9  With  the  war  for  inde- 
pendence came  tremendous  increases  in  military  expenditures,  but  no 
important  new  functions  were  added  to  the  central  government.  All 
important  relations  between  the  commonwealth  and  the  localities  re- 
mained about  as  they  were  during  the  colonial  period.10 

As  might  be  expected,  if  the  province  assumed  no  very  great  number 
of  functions,  the  local  governments  were  more  heavily  burdened.  But 
in  the  localities  as  in  the  province,  the  need  for  governmental  action 
was  felt  only  to  a  slight  extent.  The  life  of  the  local  communities  was 
not  complex,  and  the  expenditures  of  the  local  units  could  not  have  been 
called  "burdensome."  The  significance  of  the  division  of  functions 
during  the  colonial  period  does  not  lie  in  the  onerousness  of  the  fiscal 
burdens  imposed  on  the  localities,  but  in  the  number  and  variety  of 
functions  that  were  assigned  to  them.  A  single  illustration  will  serve 
to  show  the  significance  of  these  assignments.  Poor  relief,  in  colonial 
times,  was  made  a  matter  for  local  control,  and,  before  1776,  it  was  an 
important  but  not  onerous  service,  the  cost  of  which  the  localities  were 
compelled  to  bear.  In  the  nineteenth  century,  however,  when  public 
charity  came  to  include  he  care  and  treatment  of  the  insane  in  specialized 
institutions,  the  provision  of  homes  for  the  aged  and  the  physically  and 

7  The  British  government  reimbursed  the  colony  in  part.     Bigelow's  Works  of 
Benjamin  Franklin,  II,  p.  414.    This  is  Franklin's  estimate  given  before  Parliament. 

8  Gordon,  T.  F.  History  of  Pennsylvania,  pp.  260-263. 

9  Idem,  p.  585.    For  a  good  outline  of  state  and  local  governments,  their  officers 
and  duties,  see  Proud,  R.  History  of  Pennsylvania,  II,  pp.  284-291. 

10  Bolles  makes  the  statement  that  in  1760  the  cost  of  governing  each  person  in  the 
province  "was  two  and  one-half  pence  apiece."   History  of  Pennsylvania,  I,  p.  395. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  13 

mentally  incapable,  and  the  provision  of  free  hospitals  for  injured  miners, 
the  fact  that  all  poor  relief  had  long  been  regarded  as  a  local  affair  became 
of  the  greatest  fiscal  significance  for  the  localities.  The  localities  were 
now  in  danger  of  being  charged  with  services  that  were  onerous  in  the 
highest  degree. 

The  functions  assigned  to  the  local  governments  during  the  period 
when  institutions  were  becoming  fixed  may  be  grouped  roughly  under 
five  heads:  (1)  the  support  of  local  administrative,  legislative,  and 
judicial  officers;  (2)  poor  relief;  (3)  the  prosecution  and  punishment  of 
criminals;  (4)  local  public  works;  and  (5)  miscellaneous  provisions  for  the 
protection  of  life  and  property.  With  respect  to  the  first  class  of  ser- 
vices little  need  be  said,  except  that  their  fiscal  importance  depended 
upon  the  degree  of  complexity  of  local  government,  and,  other  things 
remaining  the  same,  that  they  tended  to  make  larger  demands  for  money 
as  the  community  progressed  from  a  backwoods  county  to  an  industrial 
or  commercial  center.  It  should  also  be  observed  that  the  officers  of  the 
town,  county,  borough,  city  and  province  were  supported  to  some  extent 
by  fees,  instead  of  salaries  paid  out  of  the  proceeds  of  taxation.11  In 
addition  to  the  payment  of  the  salaries  of  such  officers  as  were  not  sup- 
ported by  fees,  the  counties  were  for  many  years  charged  with  the  pay- 
ment of  their  representatives  in  the  provincial  assembly.12 

Pennsylvania's  system  of  poor  relief,  in  the  beginning,  followed  in 
general  the  practice  of  the  English  counties.  A  law  enacted  in  1682 
required  the  justices  of  the  peace  to  care  for  the  indigent,13  and  the 
principle  of  settlement  then  introduced  has  persisted  to  the  present 
time.  In  1693  the  Assembly  passed  a  bill  enabling  the  counties  to  levy 
taxes  for  the  support  of  the  poor,14  and  in  1705  was  enacted  an  elaborate 
law  setting  forth  the  organization  of  administration  and  the  entire  tech- 
nique of  poor  relief.15  And,  although  these  laws  were  amended  from  time 
to  time,  no  definite  attempt  was  made  to  relieve  the  localities  of  any  part 
of  the  burden  until  the  second  quarter  of  the  nineteenth  century,  unless 
military  pensions  are  to  be  regarded  as  a  form  of  public  charity. 

11  Urdahl,  The  Fee  System  in  The  United  States,  pp.  99,  121.    In  this  respect  Penn- 
sylvania was  no  exception  to  the  general  rule,  followed  in  all  the  colonies.    For  a  long 
list  of  "fees"  that  might  be  charged  by  different  officers  see  II  Statutes  at  Large,  pp. 
343  ff. 

12  Act  of  1724,  IV  Statutes  at  Large,  p.  13. 

13  Charters  and  Laws,  1682-1700,  p.  115.    Abrogated  in  1693  by  William  and  Mary 
and  reenacted  in  the  same  year.    Ibid.,  footnote. 

14  Idem,  p.  233. 

15 II  Statutes  at  Large,  pp.  251-254. 


14  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

The  free-school  system,  which  is  today  one  of  the  most  expensive  as 
well  as  one  of  the  most  important  of  the  services  locally  administered  in 
Pennsylvania  was  not  introduced  until  1834.  Penn  and  the  sect  to 
which  he  belonged  placed  great  stress  upon  education,  however,  and 
schools  were  established  in  the  province  as  soon  as  the  community  was 
able  to  maintain  them.  But  they  were  not  supported  by  the  govern- 
ment. The  only  public  charge  connected  with  education  was  the  school- 
ing of  paupers.16 

Acting  as  the  agent  of  the  province,  the  county  was  also  charged  with 
the  administration  of  justice.  During  colonial  times  this  involved  the 
payment  of  the  salaries  of  such  officers  as  were  not  supported  by  fees, 
and  the  prosecution  of  criminal  cases.  In  addition  the  county  was  re- 
quired to  provide  a  jail  or  a  house  of  correction  not  only  for  the  punish- 
ment of  petty  criminals  but  also  for  the  detention  of  those  serving  long 
sentences  for  serious  offenses.17 

The  principal  public  works  constructed  before  1800  were  roads  and 
bridges,  or  streets  and  bridges  within  the  cities  and  the  boroughs.  It 
is  not  to  be  supposed  that  these  improvements  entailed  large  outlays  of 
money :  The  bridges  were  crude  and  the  roadways  were  little  more  than 
clearings  through  the  forest.  The  locality  was  able  to  shift  the  burden 
of  the  more  costly  bridges  by  permitting  private  concerns  to  build  them 
and  to  charge  toll.  In  some  instances  the  province  constructed  roads, 
chiefly  for  military  purposes,  through  the  more  difficult  parts  of  the 
mountains.  The  control  of  roads  and  bridges  was  vested  in  the  governor 
and  the  council  by  the  Frame  of  Government,18  but  there  is  no  evidence 
that  the  province  ever  attempted  systematically  to  control  the  highways, 
and  it  certainly  never  attempted  to  assume  the  entire  burden  of  their 
maintenance.  The  authority  exercised  by  the  Assembly  in  later  years 
over  the  so-called  "king's  highways"  consisted  chiefly  in  ordering  the 
localities  to  construct  designated  roads.  For  the  most  part,  the  locali- 
ties were  given  complete  control  over  highway  construction  and  main- 
tenance.19 

Municipal  improvements  were  also  a  matter  of  local  control,  and  their 
cost  was  borne  locally.20  Several  minor  charges  of  little  fiscal  importance 

16  On  early  educational  institutions  in  Pennsylvania  see  Wickersham,  History  of 
Education  in  Pennsylvania,  Ch.  III. 

17  Charters  and  Laws,  1682-1700,  pp.  139,  208;  Allinson  and  Penrose,  p.  xlix. 

18  Charters  and  Laws,  1682-1700,  pp.  95,  157,  285. 

19  For  example,  Charters  and  Laws,  1682-1700,  p.  285. 

20  Idem,  p.  276,  and  II  Statutes  at  Large,  pp.  65,  414;  also  idem,  chapters  389,  41 1, 
479,  636,  743,  and  1394  for  Philadelphia. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  15 

were  early  delegated  to  the  counties.  These  had  to  do  chiefly  with  the 
protection  of  property.  Thus,  for  example,  the  county  was  required  to 
pay  bounties  for  "wolf's  heads"  and  for  the  destruction  of  crows  and 
blackbirds.21 

Thus  far  no  statement  has  been  made  with  respect  to  the  duties  of 
the  boroughs.  Since  these  governments  were,  throughout  the  colonial 
period,  subject  entirely  to  special  legislation,  accurate  generalizations 
concerning  the  scope  of  their  powers  cannot  be  made.  On  the  whole, 
however,  it  may  be  said  that  their  duties  included  the  support  of  local 
offices,  the  opening  and  the  maintenance  of  streets,  the  preservation  of 
the  public  peace ,  and  the  provision  of  a  supply  of  water  for  their  inhab- 
itants.22 

From  this  very  brief  survey  it  appears  that  the  province,  by  delegat- 
ing the  larger  part  of  the  functions  of  government  to  the  localities,  had 
practically  released  itself  from  all  fiscal  burdens  except  those  that  at- 
tended military  operations  and  the  maintenance  of  the  indispensable 
provincial  offices.  Charities  and  corrections,  whatever  education  was 
undertaken  at  public  expense,  the  building  of  highways,  and  police  came 
to  be  looked  upon  as  "local  services."  This  division  of  duties  was  not 
particularly  significant  during  the  seventeenth  and  the  eighteenth  cen- 
turies because  the  time  had  not  yet  arrived  for  the  elaboration  of  public 
charities,  the  extensive  development  of  free  education,  or  the  under- 
taking of  large  public  works. 

THE  DIVISION  or  REVENUE  RESOURCES 

While  the  distinction  between  state  and  local  services  was  thus  be- 
coming definitely  fixed,  both  by  legal  enactment  and  by  custom,  the 
revenue  systems  of  the  different  governmental  units  underwent  no  such 
crystallizing  process.  The  provincial  government  of  Pennsylvania,  like 
that  of  the  other  middle  colonies,  depended  largely  upon  indirect  taxes 
for  its  revenues.23  Imposts  were  levied  upon  wine,  rum,  beer,  and  cider 
imported  into  the  province,24  at  an  early  date,  and  were  continued  at 
varying  rates  until  1789.  An  excise  tax  was  established,  in  1684,  but, 
owing  to  its  unpopularity,  it  remained  in  operation  only  a  short  time. 
At  intervals,  during  the  subsequent  provincial  history  when  the  con- 

21 II  Statutes  at  Large,  pp.  85,  166,  238. 

22  Holcomb,  "Pennsylvania  Burroughs,"  (Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies,  IV), 
p.  175. 

23  For  a  brief  statement  of  the  provincial  tax  systems  of  the  different  colonies  see 
Bullock,  "Direct  Taxes  and  the  Federal  Constitution,"  Yale  Review,  X,  pp.  15-18. 

24  II  Statutes  at  Large,  p.  105. 


16  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

dition  of  the  treasury  made  imperious  demands  the  tax  was  again  im- 
posed, but  always  in  the  face  of  strong  opposition  from  the  Assembly.25 
A  licence  tax  was  levied  soon  after  the  founding  of  the  colony,  and  the 
scope  of  its  application  broadened  as  years  went  by;26  but  it  never  became 
a  highly  productive  source  of  income. 

Although  the  provincial  government  relied  chiefly  upon  indirect 
taxes,  direct  taxes  upon  real  and  personal  estate  and  upon  polls  were 
imposed  at  intervals  from  1693  to  1791.  The  earlier  taxes,  especially 
those  of  169327  and  169628  seem  to  have  been  collected  with  great  diffi- 
culty, and  the  latter  required  three  supplementary  acts  in  as  many  years 
to  bring  about  its  collection.29  In  spite  of  the  popular  aversion  to 
direct  taxation,  and  in  spite  of  the  dispute  that  later  developed  between 
the  proprietors  and  the  Assembly  concerning  the  liability  of  the  estates 
of  the  former  to  pay  the  tax,30  direct  levies  were  imposed  many  times 
before  1776. 

A  description  of  the  taxing  system  in  1766  shows  that  the  province 
was,  at  that  time,  levying  a  direct  tax  upon  estates,  real  and  personal, 
a  poll  tax,  a  tax  upon  offices,  trades,  professions  and  businesses  according 
to  their  profits,  an  excise  upon  wine,  rum,  and  spirits,  and  an  import 
duty  upon  negroes.31  During  the  war  against  England  the  common- 
wealth resorted  to  both  direct  and  indirect  taxes,  and  continued  both 
until  the  last  decade  of  the  century. 

The  people,  however,  never  came  to  look  with  favor  upon  the  direct 
taxes,  and  their  collection  was  always  difficult  and  unsatisfactorily  per- 
formed. The  correspondence  of  the  Executive  Council,  from  1783  to 
1789.  contains  many  letters  from  the  commissioners  of  the  various 
counties  explaining  the  difficulties  of  obtaining  the  taxes  levied  within 
their  jurisdictions  and  excusing  their  failure  to  remit  to  the  treasury 
the  amounts  properly  charged  against  them.  The  excuses  are  largely 
of  such  a  character  as  one  would  expect,  considering  the  conditions 
that  naturally  resulted  from  the  war  and  the  commercial  depression 
that  prevailed  over  a  part  of  this  decade.  There  was  a  general  scarcity 
of  money  in  which  to  pay  the  taxes;  the  owners  of  property,  even  land- 

26  Egle,  W.  H.  Pennsylvania,  p.  219. 
28 II  Statutes  at  Large,  p.  357. 

27  Charters  and  Laws,  1682-1700,  p.  221. 
™  Idem,  p.  253. 

29  Idem,  pp.  263,  274,  279. 

30  Concerning  the  details  of  the  dispute,  see  Shepher,    History  of  Proprietary 
Government  in  Pennsylvania,  Ch.  X. 

31  Bigelow's  Works  of  Benjamin  Franklin,  III,  p.  409. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  17 

holders,  were  frequently  so  much  embarrassed  financially  that  no  taxes 
could  be  collected  from  them;  sales  of  property  for  taxes  were  often  im- 
possible either  because  no  bidders  were  actually  to  be  found  or  because 
the  sympathy  of  the  community  for  the  "oppressed  taxpayer"  prevented 
bidding.  These  difficulties  can  readily  be  understood  if  we  take  into 
consideration  the  economic  condition  of  the  state  for  the  period  following 
the  war.  But  there  were  other  sources  of  failure  that  cannot  be  ex- 
plained in  this  manner.  Not  infrequently  collectors  were  careless,  or  even 
dishonest,  and,  since  the  co-operation  of  local  authorities  was  necessary 
in  order  to  invoke  the  law  against  them,  prosecutions  were  out  of  the 
question.  Furthermore,  it  frequently  happened  that  varying  amounts 
were  lost  because  of  robbery  or  theft  or  embezzlement.32 

In  1796  the  failure  of  the  state  to  collect  direct  taxes  was  observed 
and  commented  upon  by  Wolcott,  who  states  that  at  that  tune  a  part  of 
the  direct  tax  due  in  1790  remained  unpaid.33  In  1790  Governor  MifHin, 
in  addressing  the  lower  house  of  the  Assembly,  ascribed  the  financial 
embarrassment  of  the  state  during  the  Confederation  to  the  difficulties 
encountered  in  collecting  revenues.34  Whatever  opinion  may  be  formed 
as  to  the  reason  for  the  state's  failure  to  deal  successfully  with  the  war 
debt,  during  the  years  of  the  Confederation,  the  evidence  indicates  very 
great  opposition  to  the  direct  tax.  Not  only  was  the  tax  difficult  to 
administer,  but  there  were  serious  popular  objections  to  its  use. 

The  opportunity  for  the  abolition  of  this  unpopular  tax  came,  when, 
in  1790,  the  federal  government  agreed  to  assume  the  debts  the  several 
states  had  incurred  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  on  the  war  for  indepen- 
dence. Almost  as  soon  as  it  was  certain  that  the  state  would  thus  be 
relieved  of  a  great  part  of  the  accumulated  debt,  the  direc  t  tax  was  dis- 
continued, tentatively  at  first,  and  then  permanently.35  Later  in  the 
same  year  the  excise  taxes  upon  wine,  rum,  and  brandy  were  abolished;36 
in  1794  the  tax  upon  the  writs  of  the  court  of  common  pleas  was  dropped,37 
and  in  the  following  year  the  tax  on  pleasure  carriages,  which  had  been 
imposed  by  the  law  of  1783,  was  also  repealed.38 

Although  the  state  was  unable  successfully  to  collect  the  direct  tax, 
two  events  relieved  the  government  of  a  major  portion  of  the  debt  and 

32  Pennsylvania  Archives,  1st.  Ser.,  X,  pp.  75,  77,  79, 80, 92, 98,  587;  vol.  XI,  p.  603. 

33  American  State  Papers,  Finance,  I,  pp.  427-428. 
"Jour.  House  of  Reps.,  1790-1791,  p.  43. 

35  Acts  of  6  April,  1791  and  9  April,  1791,  XIV  Statutes  at  Large,  pp.  49,  78. 

36  Act  21  September,  1791,  idem.,  p.  127. 

37  Act  13  Jan.,  1794,  XV  Statutes  at  Large,  pp.  7-8. 

38  Act  13  April,  1795,  idem,  p.  287. 


18  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

placed  it  in  possession  of  a  large  amount  of  wealth.  The  first  of  these 
was  the  seizure  of  the  proprietary  estates  in  1779,39  which  gave  the  state 
possession  of  practically  all  the  unsettled  area  within  its  borders.  The 
proprietors  were  allowed  an  amount  in  payment  less  than  a  quarter 
of  a  million  pounds. 

As  has  been  said,  the  second  circumstance  that  caused  a  complete 
change  in  the  financial  condition  of  the  state  was  the  assumption  of  the 
war  debt  of  the  commonwealth  by  the  United  States.  This  act  lifted 
a  burden  of  $777,983.48  from  the  shoulders  of  Pennsylvania  taxpayers.40 
How  great  a  proportion  of  the  total  indebtedness  of  the  state,  unre- 
deemed paper  money  included,  was  thus  taken  over  by  the  federal  govern- 
ment cannot  be  accurately  stated.  On  January  1,  1791,  it  appears41 
that  the  total  obligations  of  the  commonwealth  amounted  to  about 
$2,000,000,  but  the  amount  due  the  proprietors,  the  bills  of  credit  of 
1785,  and  perhaps  several  smaller  items  were  not  eligible  for  subscription 
and  could  not,  therefore,  be  shifted  to  the  national  government.  Hamil- 
ton stated  in  1792,  after  $675,101.33  had  been  subscribed,  that  the  re- 
maining state  debt  amounted  to  about  $500,000  ;42  but  this  estimate 
must  have  been  much  too  low  if  he  meant  to  include  all  the  liabilities  of 

39  Shepherd,  History  of  Proprietary  Government  in  Pennsylvania.     Shepherd  states 
that  the  Divestment  Act  of  27  November,  1779,  provided  for  the  payment  of  £130,000 
to  the  heirs  of  William  Penn  as  compensation  for  the  lands  thus  seized. 

40  Statement  in  Relation  to  Foreign  and  Domestic  Debt,  February  24, 1794. 

41  THE  STATE  DEBT  OF  PENNSYLVANIA1 

Due  Jan.  1,  1791 

£  s  d 

Bills  of  credit  of  1785 50,862  8  5 

Funded  state  debt  including  depreciation  certificates 365,000  0  0 

Unfunded  depreciation  debt 36,500  0  0 

"Dollar  Money  "in  circulation 5,787  15  0 

"Shilling  Money"  in  circulation 14,328  18  2 

State-Island  money 704  0  0 

Due  the  proprietors 210,895  6  0 

Certificates  issued  for  interest,  etc 52,217  10  11 

Floating  indebtedness  (various  sorts) 13,796  0  3 

TOTAL  INDEBTEDNESS2 750,091         18  9 

1  From  the  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives  (1791),  Report  to  the 
House,  Feb.  8, 1791,  by  a  committee.  (From  records  of  Register  General). 

2  Does  not  include  £8,000  estimated  outstanding  warrants  of  the  Governor 
and  the  old  Executive  Council. 

42  American  State  Papers,  Finance,  I,  p.  150. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  19 

the  state.  It  would  be  more  nearly  correct  to  place  the  remaining  debt 
of  the  state  at  about  $1,200,000.  Assumption  enabled  the  state  to  drop 
the  direct  taxes,  a  step  that  would  probably  have  been  taken  without 
assumption  when  the  land  sales  began  to  return  large  revenues.  But 
relief  from  over  $777,000  of  debt  enabled  the  central  government  to 
put  the  land-sales  receipts  to  other  uses,  and  thus  paved  the  way  for 
small  irregular  subventions  during  the  period  before  1826. 

The  local  governmental  units  derived  their  revenues  at  this  time 
chiefly  from  taxes  on  real  and  personal  estates  and  from  various  unim- 
portant sources.  Their  expenditures  were  light  and  no  extensive  revenue 
systems  were,  therefore,  necessary.  But  it  is  important  to  note  that 
they  retained  possession  of  the  tax  on  real  and  personal  property,  and  that 
after  the  repeal  of  the  state  tax  on  those  objects  they  enjoyed  the  ex- 
clusive use  of  it. 


CHAPTER  III 
THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  SUBVENTIONS 

DEFINITION  AND  CLASSIFICATION  OF  GRANTS  AND  SUBVENTIONS 

Before  entering  upon  the  consideration  of  the  history  of  grants  made 
before  1826,  it  is  necessary  to  define  several  terms  which  will  be  fre- 
quently used  in  this  and  succeeding  chapters.  The  term  "subvention" 
has  not  been  commonly  used  by  writers  on  public  finance;  hence  no 
accurate  definition  is  ready  at  hand.  Dictionaries  are  of  little  assistance 
in  a  search  for  the  explanation  of  technical  economic  terms,  but  the 
general  ideas  that  pervade  the  dictionary  definitions  are  helpful  in 
showing  what  is  the  non-technical  or  every-day  meaning  of  words. 
The  meaning  attached  by  a  majority  of  lexicographers  to  the  word 
"subvention"  is  that  of  a  government  aid  or  bounty  to  any  public  enter- 
prise.1 But  most  dictionary  definitions  would  include  subsidies  to 
private  commercial  concerns,  a  kind  of  "grant"  that  does  not  fall  within 
the  scope  of  this  essay.  Hereafter  when  the  term  "subvention"  is  used  in 
this  essay  it  will  be  taken  to  mean  a  grant  of  services,  wealth,  or  property 
from  a  superior  to  an  inferior  governmental  authority,  or  to  a  quasi- 
public  corporation,  or  to  an  individual,  with  respect  to  some  service 
commonly  regarded  as  public  in  its  nature. 

English  writers  make  use  of  the  term  "grant  in  aid"  to  mean  a  grant 
from  a  superior  governmental  authority  to  an  inferior,  with  respect  to 
some  statutory  duty  imposed  upon  the  latter.  This  term  is  obviously 
narrower  than  the  term  "subvention."  The  difference  between  sub- 
ventions and  grants  in  aid  is  that  the  former  may  be  made  to  govern- 
mental authorities  or  to  corporations  and  individuals;  while  the  latter  is 
made  only  to  governmental  organizations.  This  difference  suggests  at 
once  the  first  basis  for  a  classification  of  subventions:  the  legal  or  political 
nature  of  the  recipient.  In  the  second  place,  grants  may  be  classified 
according  to  the  kind  of  service  assisted.  Thus  education,  poor  relief, 
or  road  building  would  fall  into  different  categories.  These  two  classi- 
fications are  fundamental  in  arriving  at  a  clear  understanding  of  the 
nature  of  subventions. 

1  The  Standard  Dictionary  defines  a  subvention  as  "a  grant,  as  of  money,  in  aid 
of  something;  a  subsidy,  especially  when  regarded  as  legitimate  and  proper."  A 
subsidy  is  defined  as  "pecuniary  aid  directly  granted  by  the  government  to  an  in- 
dividual or  commercial  enterprise  deemed  productive  of  public  benefit."  Webster 
defines  a  subvention  as  "a  government  aid  or  bounty;  a  subsidy. " 

20 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  21 

Two  other  bases  of  classification  are  also  significant.  Subventions 
may  be  permanent  annually  recurring  payments,  or  single  lump-sum 
grants,  or  payments  made  at  irregular  intervals.  Finally,  subventions 
and  grants  may  be  classified  according  to  the  amount  of  control  over 
expenditures  exercised  by  the  government  making  the  grant.  Thus 
subventions  may  be  unconditional,  as  when  no  check  is  put  upon  the 
recipient,  except  perhaps,  the  mere  statement  of  the  maker  of  the  grant 
that  it  is  intended  for  a  certain  purpose.  Conditional  subventions  are 
those  that  cannot  be  obtained  by  potential  recipients,  except  by  com- 
pliance with  the  terms  of  the  grant  or  subvention.  In  extreme  cases,  a 
subvention  may  be  so  strictly  controlled  that  the  recipient  acts  merely 
as  an  agent  of  the  controlling  authority  or  maker  of  the  grant. 

The  following  schematic  arrangement  presents  the  four  classifications. 

I.  Classified  according  to  the  political  and  legal  nature  of  the  recipient 
subventions  are 

1.  Grants  in  aid,  or  subventions  to  political  sub-divisions  of  the 
governmental  authority  making  the  grant 

2.  Subventions  to  quasi-public  corporations 

3.  Bounties  and  subsidies,  or  grants  to  individuals  and  corporations 
engaged  in  enterprises  commonly  regarded  as  purely  private  in 
their  nature 

II.  Classified  according  to  the  services  aided  subventions  may  be  divided 
into  as  many  kinds  as  there  are  services  receiving  aid: 

1.  General  government  (not  often  found) 

2.  Protection  to  life  and  property 

a.  Police 

b.  Protection  against  fire 

c.  The  military2 

d.  Miscellaneous2 

3.  Education 

a.  Common  or  elementary  schools 

b.  Secondary  schools 

c.  Colleges  and  universities 

d.  Technical  schools  of  medicine,  agriculture,  mechanic  arts,  etc. 

e.  Schools  for  special  classes  such  as  the  deaf  and  the  blind 

2  See  Chapter  VIII  infra. 


22  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

4.  Charity 

a.  General  poor  relief 

b.  The  insane 

c.  General  and  special  hospitals 

d.  Orphanages 

e.  Homes  for  the  aged 

f.  Miscellaneous  institutions,  e.g.,  reformation  of  prostitutes 

5.  Recreation:  parks,  etc. 

III.  Classified  according  to  duration  subventions  are 

1.  Permanent 

2.  Temporary — for  a  limited  period  of  time,  either  one,  two  or  more 
years 

3.  Occasional 

IV.  Classified  according  to  the  control  exercised  by  the  authority  mak- 
ing them,  subventions  are 

1.  Strictly  controlled 

2.  Conditional 

3.  Unconditional 

With  this  classification  in  mind  we  may  proceed  to  an  examination 
of  the  development  of  the  occasional  subventions  from  1776  to  1826. 
But  before  that  task  is  undertaken  it  is  necessary  to  review  briefly  the 
financial  policy  of  the  state  during  this  period  in  order  to  get  a  back- 
ground upon  which  to  project  our  picture  of  the  subventions. 

THE  FINANCIAL  POLICY  OF  PENNSYLVANIA,  1776  TO  1826 

The  financial  history  of  Pennsylvania  from  1776  to  1826  may  be 
roughly  divided  into  three  periods.  The  first,  from  1776  to  1793,  is 
characterized  by  heavy  expenditures  for  war,  by  the  creation  of  a  large 
war  debt,  and  by  unsuccessful  attempts  on  the  part  of  the  state  to  levy 
direct  taxes.3  These  years  are  also  characterized  by  strict  economy  in 
state  affairs  and  by  only  unimportant  instances  of  expansion  of  state 
functions. 

The  second  period  extends  from  assumption  of  the  state's  debt  by  the 
national  government  to  the  enactment  of  the  tax  on  banks  in  1814. 
During  these  years  the  state  rapidly  reduced  that  portion  of  the  debt 
for  which  the  national  government  had  not  assumed  responsibility.  This 
was  made  possible  by  the  increasing  revenue  from  land  sales  and  from 

3  Supra,  p.  16. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  23 

the  state's  investments  in  banks  and  other  enterprises.  So  prosperous 
did  it  become,  in  fact,  that  expenditures  for  other  purposes  were  also 
considerably  augmented.  The  receipts  from  investments  amounted, 
in  1802,  to  $90,000;  in  1810  to  $134,868;  and  in  1814  to  $197,  788.4  Re- 
ceipts from  land  sales  varied  greatly,  as  might  have  been  expected.  In 
1795  they  amounted  to  about  $120,000;5  in  1802  to  $44,922;6  and  in 
1809  to  $287,354.7  Considerable  revenue  was  also  derived  from  auction 
duties  and  license  taxes.  This  was  essentially  a  period  of  prosperity  for 
the  state  treasury. 

During  the  third  period,  1814  to  1826,  the  significant  features  of  the 
state's  financial  policy  were  the  introduction  of  the  bank  tax  in  18  14,8 
the  enactment  of  a  law  taxing  dealers  in  foreign  merchandise  in  182  1,9 
the  act  of  the  same  year  commissioning  auctioneers,10  and  the  heavy 
investments  of  the  state  in  bridge,  turnpike,  and  bank  stock.  In  1826 
the  state  held  $2,108,700  of  stocks  in  various  banks,  and  $1,835,512  in 
turnpike  companies,  $577,923  in  bridge  and  navigation  companies.11 
The  dividends  on  these  stocks  amounted  in  that  year  to  $132,154.12 
These  subscriptions  had,  in  part,  been  made  from  the  proceeds  of  loans. 

GRANTS  FOR  EDUCATION,  1776  TO  1826 

One  of  the  first  objects  to  which  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  turned 
its  attenton  on  emerging  from  the  revolutionary  struggle  was  public 
education.  In  fact,  the  first  constitution,  adopted  in  1776,  contained  a 
declaration  that  "  A  school  or  schools  shall  be  established  in  each  county 
by  the  legislature,  for  the  convenient  instruction  of  youth,  with  such 
salaries  to  the  masters  paid  by  the  public  as  may  enable  them  to  instruct 
youth  at  low  prices:  And  all  useful  learning  shall  be  duly  encouraged 
and  promoted  in  one  or  more  universities.  "13  Nothing  could  be  accom- 
plished, however,  during  the  turbulent  years  of  the  war,  and  even  after 

4  Register  General,  Report  (1802);  Aud.  Gen.  Reports  (1810),  and  (1814),  Sum- 
mary Statement. 

B  Register  General,  Report  (1795). 

6  Aud.  Gen.  Report  (1802),  Summary  Statement. 

7  Idem  (1810),  Summary  Statement. 

8  Act  21  Mar.,  1814,  Sec.  X,  P.L.  p.  169.    On  the  date  given  the  act  was  passed 
over  the  veto  of  the  governor. 

9  Act  2  April,  1821,  P.L.  pp.  244-246. 

10  Idem,  pp.  259-261. 

11  Aud.  Gen.  Report  (1826),  Appendix,  p.  in. 


11  Thorpe's  Constitutions,  vol.  V,  p.  3091. 


24  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

independence  was  gained  the  load  of  debt  resulting  from  the  war  pre- 
cluded any  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  state  to  assist  financially  in 
building  up  a  school  system.  But  the  state  was  rich  in  one  kind  of 
wealth,  namely,  land.  This  it  could  use  freely  in  subsidizing  proposed 
and  existing  institutions  of  learning. 

The  first  grant  came  in  1779  when  the  University  of  Pennsylvania 
was  given  the  proceeds  of  certain  tory  estates  which  had  been  declared 
forfeited  to  the  state.14  Seven  years  later,  60,000  acres  of  land,  belong- 
ing to  the  state,  were  set  aside  for  the  benefit  of  educational  institutions, 
but  no  grants  were  specifically  made  from  this  tract  to  particular  in- 
stitutions by  that  act.15  In  other  sections  of  the  same  act  Dickinson 
College  was  granted  10,000  acres  of  land  and  £500  from  the  state  trea- 
sury. In  the  following  year  academies  were  incorporated  in  Pittsburgh,16 
in  Washington  County,17  and  in  Philadelphia,18  and  each  was  granted  a 
tract  of  land  for  an  endowment.  The  acts  incoporating  and  endowing 
Pittsburgh  Academy  (in  Allegheny  County)  are  typical  of  the  others 
that  were  passed  during  the  next  forty  years  for  the  endowment  of  acad- 
emies and  seminaries.  The  board  of  trustees  was  created  a  corporation 
with  full  power  over  the  academy,  including  the  right  to  receive,  manage, 
and  expend  the  proceeds  of  gifts  and  donations  to  the  institution.  They 
were  not  subject  to  supervision  by  any  public  authority.  Vacancies  in 
the  board  were  to  be  filled  by  the  vote  of  the  surviving  members.  The 
acts  making  the  grant  of  land  were  absolute  and  unconditional.  For 
example,  one  such  act  simply  stated  "That  the  quantity  of  five  thousand 
acres  of  land  to  be  located,  set  out,  and  surveyed  within  the  unappro- 
priated lands  belonging  to  this  state  be,  and  are  hereby  granted  to  the 
trustees  of  Pittsburgh  Academy,  to  have  and  to  hold  the  same  to  them 
and  their  successors  forever."19  Within  the  next  twenty-five  years, 
grants  of  land  were  made  to  many  other  academies  and  colleges  as  is 
shown  by  the  following  table: 

"Senate  Committee  on  Education  (1822),  Report,  pp.  4-5.  This  report  was 
printed  separately  and  may  also  be  found  in  the  Senate  Journal  for  1821-22. 

15  Act  7  April,  1786,  XII  Stat.  At  Large,  pp.  221-224. 

18  Act  28  Feb.,  1787,  XII  Stat.  At  Large,  pp.  357-359,  and  Act  10  Sept.,  1787, 
idem.,  pp.  489-490. 

17  Act  24  Sept.,  1787,  idem,  pp.  527-531. 

18  Act  29  Mar.,  1787,  idem,  pp.  479-483. 

19  Act  28  Feb.,  1787,  idem,  pp.  357-359. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 


25 


ACADEMIES  TO  WHICH  THE  STATE  MADE  GRANTS  OF  LAND  OR  MONEY 

1786-18341 


Name  of  Institution 

Date  of 
Incorpo- 
ration 

County 

Land  Grants 

Money  Grants 

Amount 
(acres) 

Date 

Amount 

Date 

Public  Schools  of  German- 
town 

1784 
1787 

1787 
1787 
1788 

1789 
1789 

1790 
1797 
1799 
(1802 
41806 
(1811 
(  1803 
(1813 
1804 
1805 
(1794) 
1806 

Philadelphia 
Allegheny 

Philadelphia 
Washington 
Berks 

Philadelphia 
Philadelphia 

Bucks 
Franklin 
York 

Crawford 
Beaver 

Montgomery 
Center 
Northampton 
Beaver 
Washington 
Luzerne 
Bucks 

Bucks 
Northum'ld 
Fayette 
Dauphin 

Westmoreland 
Somerset 
Adams 
Bedford 
Greene 
Butler 

5,000 

10,000 
5,000 
5,000 
488 

5,000 
5,000 

1787 

1787 
1787 
1788 
1818 

1789 
1789 

$2,000 
5,000 

3,000 
2,000 
3,000 

1821 
1798 

1797 
1807 
1832 

*Pittsburg  Academy  
Acad.  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  Philadelphia  
*Washington  Academy  
*Reading  Academy 

Ger.  Luth'n  Charity  School 
of  Philadelphia 

Reform'd  Cong.,  Philadelphia 
*Academy  &  Free  School  of 
Bucks  County  
*Chambersburg  Academy.... 
*York  Academy 

4,000 
2,000 
2,000 

1,000 

1798 
1799 
1798 

1806 

*Meadville  Academy 

Beaver  Academy 

500 
(a) 

1803 

Norristown  Academy  
Bellefonte  Academy 

2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
600 
1,000 
2,000 

800 
2,000 
2,000 
1,000 
1,800 
500 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 

1805 
1806 
1805 
1806 
1800 
1807 

1806 
1808 
1808 
1809 
1818 
1832 
1810 
1810 
1810 
1810 
1810 
1810 

Easton  Academy  
Greersburg  Academy 

Canonsburg  Academy  

Wilkesbarre  Academy  
Fall  Township  Free  School.. 
*Union  Academy  of  Doyles- 
town  .    . 

1807 
1807 

1805 
1804 
1808 
1809 

1810 
1810 
1810 
1810 
1810 
1810 

(*>)'" 

(c) 
(d) 



Northumberland  Academy. 
Union  town  Academy  
Harrisburg  Academy  

*Greensburg  Academy  
*Somerset  Academy  
*Gettysburg  Academy  
*Bedford  Academy  
*Greene  Academy 

*Butler  Academy  

(e) 

26 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 


ACAD  AMIES  TO  WHICH  THE  STATE  MADE  GIFTS  OF  LANDS  OR  MONEY 

1786-1834 


Name  of  Institution 

Date  of 
Incorpo- 
ration 

County 

Land  Grants 

Money  Grants 

Amount 
(acres) 

Date 

Amount 

Date 

Chester  Co.  Academy  

1811 
1811 
1811 
1811 
1811 
1812 
1812 
1812 
1813 

1803 
1813 
1813 
1814 
1814 
1815 
1816 
1816 
1816 
1811 

1819 
1819 
1821 
1822 
1827 
1827 
1827 
1827 
1829 

Chester 
Mercer 
Lycoming 
Erie  
Erie 
Montgomery 
Venango 
Wayne 
Wayne 

Philadelphia 
Bradford 
Schuylkill 
Lehigh 
Indiana 
Mifflin 
Lebanon 
Huntingdon 
Susquehanna 
Chester 

Cambria 
Tioga 
Armstrong 
Warren 
Clearfield 
Pike 
Union 
Lancaster 
McKean 

2,000 
2,000 
2,000 

2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
5,000 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
1,000 
2,500 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 

1811 
1811 
1811 

1820 
1812 
1812 
1812 
1813 
1828 
1813 
1813 
1813 
1814 
1814 
1815 
1816 
1816 
1816 
1817 
1834 
1819 
1819 
1821 
1832 
1827 
1827 
1827 
1827 
1829 

*Mercer  Academy  

*Williamsport  Academy  
Waterford  Academy  
Erie  Academy 

500  (f) 
500  (g) 

(h) 

1811 
1811 

Loller  Academy  

*Venango  Academy  
Delaware  Academy 

*Beachwoods  Academy  

Bustletown  Academy  
*Athens  Academy  
*Orwigsburg  Academy  
*Allentown  Academy  

"Indiana  Academy  
*Lewistown  Academy  
*Lebanon  Academy  
*Huntingdon  Academy  
*Susquehanna  Academy  

*Westchester  Academy  

*Ebensburg  Academy  
*Wellsborough  Academy  
Kittanning  Academy 

*Warren  Academy  
*Clearfield  Academy  
*Milford  Academy  

500 

1822 

Mifflinburg  Academy  
*Lancaster  Co.  Academy  
*Smethport  Academy  

1  Report,  of  Senate  Committee  on  Education,  read  in  the  Senate  March  1,  1822, 
Mr.  Wurts,  Chairman.  Wickersham's  History  of  Education  in  Pennsylvania, 
pp.  379-380,  and  Pamphlet  Laws  for  years  in  which  appropriations  were  made  are 
authorities  used  in  construction  of  this  table.  In  only  one  or  two  particulars  where 
it  has  been  made  more  complete  does  it  vary  from  the  data  given  by  Wickersham. 

*  These  academies  were  required  to  admit  gratis  a  certain  number  of  poor 
students  for  a  limited  time. 

(a)  In  1805  the  academy  was  granted  certain  property  formerly  granted  to  the 
trustees  of  Center  County. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  27 

It  is  noticeable  that  the  policy  of  granting  lands  to  academies  when 
they  were  chartered  was  practically  discontinued  after  1789.  There- 
after, such  subventions  only  amounted,  as  rule,  to  sites  for  buildings. 
Cash  grants  were  substituted  for  land  after  about  1798.  The 
reasons  for  this  change  of  policy  were  two.  In  the  first  place  it 
was  quickly  discovered  that  a  grant  of  wild,  uninhabited  land  was  not 
the  kind  of  assistance  needed  by  a  college  or  academy  during  the  initial 
period  of  its  existence.  What  was  needed,  was  immediate  financial 
aid. 

The  history  of  Dickinson  College  is  illustrative  of  this  point.  The 
grant  of  10,000  acres  of  land  and  £500,  which  had  been  made  in  1786, 
together  with  such  support  of  private  individuals  as  the  college  was 
able  to  command,  soon  proved  inadequate,  and  the  institution  became 
heavily  involved  in  debt.  Five  years  after  the  date  of  incorporation, 
the  General  Assembly  was  again  appealed  to,  and  a  grant  in  cash  of 
£1,500  was  made  from  the  state  treasury.20  But  four  years  later,  the 
college  was  again  financially  embarrassed  and  another  appeal  to  the 
legislature  secured  a  further  grant  of  $5,000  to  pay  the  debts  of  the 
institution  and  to  provide  a  small  endowment.21  In  1803,  the  building 
of  the  college  having  been  destroyed  by  fire,  the  legislature  loaned  it 
$6,000  for  rebuilding,  the  state  taking  a  mortgage  on  the  lands  granted  in 
1786.  In  1806  this  loan  was  increased  to  $10,000,  the  lands  again  being 
mortgaged  as  security  for  repayment,  but  in  1819  the  legislature  author- 
ized the  governor  to  cancel  the  existing  mortgage  and  the  college  was 
forever  discharged  from  payment  of  the  loans.22  In  1821  the  legislature 
provided  for  the  transfer  of  the  remainder  of  the  original  land  grant 
held  by  the  college,  as  well  as  all  investments  of  funds  derived  from  the 
sale  of  such  lands,  to  the  state.  In  consideration  the  state  agreed  to 

(b)  Also  rents  accruing  from  certain  lands.     See  Act  of  1807,  P.  L.  pp.  91-93. 

(c)  See  Act  of  1808,  P.  L.  p.  179. 

(d)  Also  a  tract  of  land  of  indefinite  amount.     See  Act  of  1814  P.  L.  p.  24. 

(e)  Also  a  tract  of  land  in  1813. 

(f)  In  1811  the  academy  was  granted  15  town  lots  in  Waterford;  in  1816,  8  more 
lots  were  granted. 

(g)  The  academy  was  given  15  town  lots  in  1811. 
(h)  In  1823  the  academy  was  granted  2  town  lots. 

20  Act  20  Sept.,  1791,  XIV  Stal.  at  Large,  pp.  123-124. 

21  Act  1 1  April  1795,  XV  Slat.  At  Large,  p.  282.     For  a  short  account  of  the  grants 
to  Dickinson  College  see  Report  of  The  Senate  Committee  on  Education  (1822),  pp. 
7ff. 

22  Report  of  The  Senate  Committee  on  Education  (1822),  pp.  7  ff. 


28  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

pay  the  college  $6,000.    This  act  also  gave  the  college  an  annual  sub- 
vention of  $2,000  to  continue  for  five  years.23 

The  history  of  Dickinson  College  shows  in  detail  for  one  institution 
the  futility  of  the  land  grant  policy.  It  also  illustrates  the  tendency 
for  occasional  grants  to  become  permanent.  When  once  the  state  had 
committed  itself  to  the  support  of  the  college  by  the  original  grant,  a 
precedent  for  aiding  that  particular  institution  was  established  which 
made  it  easier  for  the  college  to  secure  assistance  in  later  years.  Also, 
when  the  state  had  once  contributed  to  the  endowment  of  the  college, 
further  contributions  were  necessary  to  prevent  the  loss  of  the  original 
endowment.  The  working  of  this  tendency  is  more  fully  illustrated 
in  the  grants  to  charitable  institutions  in  recent  years.  The  question 
whether  cash  grants  to  colleges  and  academies  during  this  period  were 
really  effective  in  establishing  centers  of  education  must  be  deferred 
to  the  next  chapter,  when  the  policy  reaches  its  culmination. 

Assistance  to  elementary  education  by  the  state  did  not  develop 
during  the  period  under  consideration  in  this  chapter.  In  fact,  nothing 
like  a  state  system  of  common  schools  made  its  appearance  till  the  fourth 
decade  of  the  nineteenth  century.  An  attempt  was,  however,  made  to 
provide  for  the  education  of  pauper  children  at  public  (local)  expense 
but  even  this  was  only  partially  successful.  Chief  among  the  reasons 
for  the  failure  of  the  pauper  schools  was  the  fact  that  all  the  children 
who  were  enrolled  in  them  were  classed  as  recipients  of  poor  relief  and 
the  stigma  of  pauperism  immediately  attached  to  them  and  their 
parents.24  These  schools  were,  therefore,  poorly  attended  and  badly 
conducted. 

The  failure  of  the  pauper  school  law  to  provide  education  for  the 
children  of  poor  parents  and  the  example  of  neighboring  states  that 
had  provided  for  free  schools  very  naturally  caused  many  persons  to 
agitate  for  a  free  common  school  law  in  Pennsylvania.  In  1792  a  com- 
mittee of  the  House  of  Representatives  considered  the  advisability  of 
enacting  a  law  to  provide  for  free  common  schools.  The  desirability 
of  a  more  adequate  system  of  elementary  education  was  conceded  with- 
out argument.  But  the  adoption  of  any  plan  for  such  a  system  would 
have  required  either  a  direct  state  tax  or  heavy  local  levies  for  its  sup- 
port. In  the  opinion  of  the  committee  neither  of  these  expedients 
was  advisable  because  of  the  hostility  of  the  people  toward  heavier 

23  Act  20  Feb.,  1821,  P.L.  pp.  47-48. 

24  Wickersham,  p.  274. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  29 

taxation.25  Thus  the  earliest  movement  for  free  common  schools  failed 
to  receive  the  support  of  the  state  and  no  grant  in  aid  was  made  to 
counties  or  townships  for  the  support  of  education  during  this  period. 

In  conclusion,  the  principal  characteristics  of  the  grants  to  educational 
institutions  during  this  period  may  be  summed  up  briefly.  (1)  Grants 
in  aid  to  counties  and  townships  did  not  develop,  in  part,  because  of  the 
fear  of  the  legislature  to  levy  the  direct  taxes  necessary  for  the  support 
of  a  state-wide  system  of  education,  and  in  part,  no  doubt,  because  the 
people  of  the  state  were  not  ready  for  a  free  common  school  system. 
(2)  Occasional  grants  were  made  to  promote  private  educational  institu- 
tions when  it  was  believed  that  these  institutions  could  command  the 
support  of  individual  benefactors.  After  individual  support  failed,  how- 
ever, as  in  the  case  of  Dickinson,  the  state  was  appealed  to  from  time 
to  time  for  assistance  to  pay  debts  and  to  rebuild  buildings.  (3)  There 
was  a  tendency  for  these  grants  of  lands  for  endowment  to  establish  a 
claim  upon  the  legislature  for  further  assistance.  (4)  The  grants  were 
practically  uncontrolled  in  the  beginning,  but  as  time  went  on,  and  they 
became  more  numerous,  the  state  usually  required  the  college  or  academy 
to  admit  a  certain  number  of  students,  tuition  free.  But  no  audit  of  the 
accounts  of  these  institutions  nor  inspection  by  a  state  officer  for  the 
purpose  of  ascertaining  whether  they  lived  up  to  the  provisions  of  their 
charters  and  of  the  grants  were,  as  a  rule,  provided.  (5)  The  number 
and  amount  of  the  grants  seem  to  have  been  affected,  to  a  slight  extent, 
by  the  financial  prosperity  of  the  state  treasury.  (6)  Finally,  there  is  no 
evidence  to  show  what  effect  state  support  had  upon  the  tendency  of 
individuals  to  contribute  to  the  endowment  and  maintenance  of  educa- 
tional institutions. 

GRANTS  FOR  CHARITY 

Poor  relief  in  Pennsylvania,  as  has  been  pointed  out,26  became  a  local 
charge  at  the  organization  of  Penn's  government.  During  the  century 
following,  relief  of  the  indigent  included  not  only  the  provision  of  the 
necessities  of  life  for  those  who  were  unable,  for  any  reason  whatever,  to 
support  themselves,  but  also  the  care  and  maintenance  of  the  insane 
and  the  feeble-minded,  the  care  of  orphans,  and  the  treatment  of  the 
indigent  sick.  The  principle  of  settlement  was  introduced  in  imitation 
of  the  English  poor  law  and  each  county  was  charged  only  with  those 
who  could  prove  residence.  This  provision  remained  very  much  the 

25  Report  of  the  Committee  on  the  Establishment  of  Common  Schools,  Jour, 
of  House  of  Reps.  (1792),  p.  177. 

26  Supra,  p.  12. 


30  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

same  as  in  the  Statute  of  Elizabeth.27  The  principle  that  the  place  of 
residence  (the  county)  should  look  after  the  poor  was  firmly  established 
when  the  state  first  took  up  the  policy  of  making  grants  and  not  even  at 
the  present  time  has  any  attempt  been  made  to  relieve  the  localities  of 
the  primary  burden  of  poor  relief.  What  assistance  the  state  has  given— 
and  in  recent  years  it  has  amounted  to  millions  of  dollars  an- 
nually— has  been  in  aid  of  special  services  such  as  provision  for  the  in- 
sane, homes  for  defectives  and  orphans,  and  similar  institutions.  But  this 
came  only  with  the  recognition  of  the  necessity  of  providing  institu- 
tions which  specialized  in  the  treatment  of  these  classes. 

There  are  instances  reported  by  secondary  writers  of  state  aid  for  the 
building  of  almshouses,  but  these  may  be  regarded  as  the  exceptional 
cases  in  which  extraordinary  local  conditions,  coupled  with  influence  in 
the  legislature,  obtained  for  the  county  a  special  concession. 

The  first  large  grants  for  charity  were  made  to  privately  owned  insti- 
tutions. Thus  the  Pennsylvania  Hospital,  which  was  chartered  by  the 
provincial  assembly  in  1751,  received  aid  not  only  from  the  colonial 
government,  but  also,  on  various  occasions,  from  the  British  parlia- 
ment.28 In  1793  the  hospital  received  a  peculiar  grant  from  the  state. 
No  money  was  given,  but  the  legislature  conferred  on  it  the  right  to 
receive  the  proceeds  of  certain  liabilities  to  the  state,  up  to  the  amount 
of  $26,666.67.  In  addition,  the  commissioners  in  bankruptcy,  appointed 
under  the  act  of  1785,  were  required  to  turn  over  to  the  hospital  all  un- 
claimed sums  due  creditors  of  bankrupts.29  The  contributors  to  the 
hospital  were  required  to  assume  responsibility  for  the  repayment  of 
these  claims  when  the  creditors  appeared  within  the  time  allowed  by  law. 
The  preamble  of  the  act  making  this  grant  recited  the  benefits  which 
the  people  of  the  state,  and  humanity  in  general,  had  received  from  the 
activity  of  the  hospital,  and  asserted  the  claim  that  it  had  upon  the 
generosity  of  the  Commonwealth.  But  the  condition  of  the  state 
finances  was,  at  that  time,  not  such  as  to  warrant  a  grant  of  cash  directly 
from  the  treasury.  So  the  hospital  was  given  the  right  to  collect  some 

27  Commissioners  to  Revise  and  Codify  Poor  Laws  (1890),  Report,  pp.  31  ff . 

28  Special  Committee  of  the  Senate  to  Inquire  into  the  Propriety  of  Establishing 
a  Board  of  State  Charities,  Report  (1869),  pp.  12-13. 

29  XIV  Stat.  at  Large,  pp.  435-440. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  31 

bad  debts  and  to  participate  in  unclaimed  moneys.30  But  this  assistance 
proved  inadequate,  and,  in  1796,  the  General  Assembly  appropriated 
$25,000  to  assist  in  completing  certain  buildings.  This  act  provided  that 
an  account  of  the  manner  of  expending  the  sum  appropriated  should  be 
laid  before  the  legislature.31 

The  second  charitable  institution  to  receive  state  aid  was  The  Penn- 
sylvania Institution  for  the  Deaf  and  Dumb.  Previous  to  1821  an  asso- 
ciation in  Philadelphia  had  been  conducting  a  school  for  deaf  and  dumb 
children.  The  parents  of  the  pupils  were  charged  with  the  cost  of  main- 
tenance and  instruction  whenever  they  were  able  to  pay,  but  many  char- 
ity cases  were  also  received.  In  1821  the  General  Assembly  incorporated 
the  subscribers  of  the  institution.  An  appropriation  of  $8,000  was  made 
to  the  school,  and  the  state  agreed  to  pay  $160  annually  for  each  "indi- 
gent pupil  taught  in  said  school, "  but  no  child  could  remain  there  at  the 
state's  expense  for  more  than  three  years.  That  part  of  the  act  obligat- 
ing the  state  to  pay  for  the  instruction  of  indigent  pupils  limited  the 
annual  expenditure  for  the  purpose  to  $8,000.  The  duration  of  the 
annual  grant  was  limited  to  four  years.  The  corporation  was  required 
to  report  annually  to  the  legislature  on  the  finances  and  on  the  manage- 
ment of  the  institution,  but  no  supervision,  either  of  finance  or  of  methods, 
was  required.32 

These  early  grants  to  charitable  institutions  are  significant  in  that 
they  show  the  absence  of  any  theory  of  limitation  upon  the  power  of  the  leg- 
islature to  aid  privately  owned  charitable  institutions  if  such  aid  seemed 
desirable.  Since  the  Pennsylvania  Hospital  had  rendered  notable  assis- 
tance to  the  public,  both  during  the  Revolutionary  War  and  during  severe- 
epidemics,  it  appeared  just  that  the  people,  through  their  representatives, 
should  assist  the  hospital  when  it  was  in  financial  need.  The  grant  to  the 
school  for  the  deaf  and  dumb  was  of  a  somewhat  different  sort,  since  it 
recognized  the  obligation  of  the  state  to  contribute  annually  to  the  sup- 
port of  a  charitable  institution  which  rendered  a  needed  public  service. 

30  Thomas  G.  Morton,  in  his  History  of  The  Pennsylvania  Hospital,  makes  the 
statement,  p.  77,  that  the  hospital  received  $19,000  from  the  estates  of  bankrupts, 
and  intimates  that  all  the  $26,666.67  was  collected.     He  also  mentions,  p.  66,  that  in 
1782  the  General  Assembly  turned  over  to  the  hospital  unclaimed  shares  in  prizes 
captured  by  American  privateers  during  the  Revolutionary  War.    The  amount  de- 
rived from  this  source  was  not  considerable. 

31  Act  4  April,  1796,  XV  Slot,  at  Large,  pp.  466-467. 
13  Act  8  Feb.,  1821 ,  P.L.  pp.  30-33. 


32  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

GRANTS  IN  AID  FOR  ROADS  AND  BRIDGES 

From  the  earliest  times  in  Pennsylvania,  two  kinds  of  roads  were 
recognized.  The  Assembly  controlled  all  "King's  Highways,"  while 
other  roads  were  subject  to  local  jurisdiction.  Later  this  distinction 
seems  to  have  been  lost.  During  the  early  colonial  times  many  "King's 
Highways"  were  laid  out,  but  from  1776  to  1791  the  government  paid 
very  little  attention  to  road  making,  unless  military  operations  demanded 
it. 

No  settled  policy  in  distributing  the  burden  of  road  making  was 
adhered  to  during  the  colonial  era.  Sometimes  the  central  government 
authorized  the  construction  of  "King's  Highways"  at  local  expenses 
sometimes,  especially  when  roads  were  of  military  importance,  the 
colony  undertook  their  construction.  No  distribution  of  duties  between 
the  localities  and  the  central  government  was,  however,  worked  out.  On 
the  whole,  we  may  say  that  down  to  1790  the  roads  of  Pennsylvania  were 
constructed  and  financed  by  the  localities. 

In  1791  the  state  appropriated  $20,000  for  the  construction  of  roads 
by  contract;  in  1792,  $21,305  was  added  and  in  1793,  $38,221.33  All 
these  improvements  were  made  directly  by  the  state  without  assistance 
from  the  localities.  There  is  no  evidence  to  show  that  these  roads  were 
part  of  a  contemplated  system  of  highways,  although  there  is  every  rea- 
son to  suppose  that  they  were  the  more  important  lines  of  communica- 
tion. 

In  1799  a  peculiar  grant  was  made  to  Bedford  County.  The  county 
had  long  owed  a  debt  to  the  state  treasury.  This  sum  the  governor 
was  authorized  to  collect  and  turn  over  to  the  county  authorities  to 
be  used  for  the  construction  of  certain  bridges  and  the  improvement 
of  a  state  road.  The  occasion  for  this  grant  in  aid  was  briefly  explained 
in  the  preamble  of  the  act,  which  sets  forth  the  need  for  the  bridges,  the 
great  burden  of  road  improvements  in  that  mountainous  country,  and 
the  inability  of  the  people  to  raise  sufficient  money  by  taxation  to  defray 
the  cost  of  the  improvements.34  In  the  same  year  MifHin  County  re- 
ceived a  grant  of  $800  for  the  improvement  of  roads  within  its  borders. 
This  money  was  not  to  be  drawn  from  the  state  treasury,  but  was  to 
be  collected  by  the  county  from  the  arrearage  of  direct  taxes  due  the 

33  Breck,  S.  A  Sketch  of  the  Internal  Improvements  Already  Made  in  Pennsylvania 
(1818),  p.  4.     For  a  detailed  statement  of  these  improvements  see  a  description  of 
the  contracts  in  "Contracts  to  improve  Roads  and  Rivers,"  found  with  Register 
General's  Report  (1797). 

34  Act  28  Mar.,  1799,  XVI  Slot,  at  Large,  pp.  214-215. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  33 

state.36  Here  again  the  law  recites  the  difficulties  of  road  construction 
and  the  need  for  improvements.  Both  these  grants  were  made  to  the 
county  commissioners  to  be  expended  in  making  improvements  designa- 
ted by  the  legislature,  but  the  manner  in  which  the  moneys  were  to  be 
expended  was  left  entirely  to  the  discretion  of  the  county  officers.  No 
inspection  of  the  work,  nor  audit  of  accounts  by  representatives  of  the 
state  was  required.  These  payments  are,  therefore,  to  be  classed  as 
unconditional  grants  in  aid.  The  peculiarity  of  these  two  grants,  and 
of  a  considerable  number  of  others  made  about  the  same  time,  is 
that  the  state  turned  over  to  the  counties  claims  for  taxes  and  other 
debts  due  from  the  counties  themselves. 

But  not  all  grants  in  aid  of  this  period  exhibited  the  peculiarity  just 
mentioned.  In  1805  an  act  was  passed  granting  the  commissioners  of 
Allegheny  County  $500  from  the  state  treasury  to  build  roads.  Here 
the  act  was  justified  on  the  ground  that  roads  connecting  the  older 
sections  of  the  state  with  the  Ohio  Valley  would  benefit  the  state  at 
large,  and  that  the  cost  of  their  construction  was  too  great  a  burden 
for  the  county  to  bear  unassisted.36  The  only  measure  of  control  exer- 
cised by  the  state  was  the  withholding  of  the  money  granted  until  the 
work  was  completed.  Audit  of  the  accounts  by  the  county  auditors 
was,  of  course,  required.37 

After  1806  the  settlement  of  the  western  portion  of  the  state  went  on 
rapidly.  The  demands  for  state  aid  in  building  roads  and  bridges  greatly 
increased,  and  grants  became  more  numerous.  In  1809,  the  Auditor 
General  reported  $7,528  paid  to  the  commissioners  of  various  counties 
for  aid  in  road  building.38  In  the  same  year  the  state  expended  $13,548 
directly  in  improving  roads.39 

There  was,  at  this  time,  apparently  no  settled  policy  of  the  division 
of  the  work  of  road  construction  between  the  state  and  the  counties. 
In  1809  an  act  was  passed  authorizing  the  governor  to  appoint  com- 
missioners to  lay  out  a  state  road  in  Chester,  Lancaster,  and  York  coun- 
ties. These  commissioners  acted  as  state  officers,  but  the  act  provided 
that  both  the  cost  of  construction  of  the  roads  and  the  pay  of  the  com- 

86  Act  11  April,  1799,  XVI  Stat.  At  Large,  p.  323. 

36  Act  29  Mar.,  1805,  P.L.  1804-1806,  p.  174-175. 

37  Ibid.     For  other  grants  of  a  similar  nature,  for  which  no  state  audit  or  in- 
spection was  required,  see  Act  28  Mar.,  1806,  P.L.  1804-1806,  pp.  637-639,  by  which 
the  commissioners  of  Venango,  Centre,  and  Green  counties  were  granted  $300,  $500, 
$200,  respectively,  for  the  constrction  of  specified  sections  of  designated  roads. 

38  Report  (1809),  pp.  20-21. 
"Ibid. 


34  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

missioners  should  be  drawn  from  the  local  treasuries.40  Another  law 
containing  similar  provisions  applied  to  roads  to  be  laid  out  in 
Cumberland,  York  and  Adams  counties.41  Thus,  at  about  the  same 
time,  we  find  the  state  pursuing  three  different  policies  in  making  and 
paying  for  road  improvements.  In  some  cases  it  made  grants  in  aid  to 
the  counties;  in  others  it  required  the  counties  to  build  and  pay  for  cer- 
tain highways;  in  still  others  it  made  the  improvements  and  paid  for  them 
from  its  own  treasury. 

The  grants  to  counties  for  road  improvements  continued  to  be  im- 
portant items  in  the  state  budget  during  the  years  1810  to  1820.  In 
1811,  by  a  single  act,  twenty-two  counties  received  grants  varying  from 
$400  to  $1,400,  and  amounting  in  the  aggregate  to  $15,400.42  But  the 
grants  became  relatively  fewer  after  1818.  The  reason  can  only  be  con- 
jectured. In  part,  this  change  of  policy  may  be  attributed  to  the  increase 
in  the  number  of  private  turnpike  companies  to  whose  stock  the  state 
subscribed  liberally;  in  part,  it  was  probably  due  to  the  fact  that  the 
more  important  roads  had  by  that  time  been  constructed;  in  part,  to 
the  fact  that,  with  the  growth  of  the  counties  in  wealth  and  population, 
state  aid  was  no  longer  necessary  to  enable  them  to  construct  highways; 
and,  finally,  with  the  advent  of  canals  as  the  carriers  of  heavy  traffic 
road-making  became  less  important  to  the  community  as  a  whole. 

We  may  summarize  briefly  the  policy  of  the  state  in  making  grants 
to  aid  counties  in  road  building.  In  the  first  place  the  causes  for  the 
grants  were:  (1)  the  very  vital  interest  of  the  entire  state  in  the  con- 
struction of  good  highways;  (2)  the  desire  to  encourage  local  activity  in 
road  building.  The  occasions  for  making  these  grants  were  usually: 
(1)  the  superior  financial  resources  of  the  state;  (2)  the  necessity  for 
building  roads  in  an  unsettled,  difficult  country,  or  the  construction  of 
expensive  metalled  roads  to  connect  important  commercial  centers; 
and  (3)  the  attempt  to  collect  from  the  counties  taxes  and  debts  long 
over-due. 

In  general  the  grants  were  conditional  in  that  they  were  made  for 
a  specified  purpose.  But  they  were  uncontrolled  by  the  state,  either 
through  inspection  of  the  service  subsidized,  or  through  inspection  of 
accounts.  No  judgment  can  be  passed  upon  the  efficacy  of  the  grants 
in  achieving  their  purpose — i.e.  the  encouragement  of  the  counties  in 

40  Act  22  Mar.,  1809,  P.L.  pp.  85-86. 

41  Act  28  Mar.,  1809,  P.L.  pp.  118-119. 
«  Act  2  April,  1811,  P.L.  pp.  259-266. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  35 

road  building;  nor  can  we  determine  whether  the  funds  appropriated 
were  used  efficiently. 

OTHER  GRANTS  AND  SUBVENTIONS,  1776  to  1826 

During  colonial  times  it  was  not  unheard  of  for  the  central  govern- 
ment to  assist  the  local  governments  in  almost  any  undertaking  involving 
the  expenditure  of  money.  But  such  general  grants  were  neither  large 
nor  common  and  during  this  period  grants  in  aid,  for  purposes  other  than 
roads,  are  found  only  occasionally.  In  1805,  for  some  unexplained  rea- 
son, the  General  Assembly  presented  Indiana  County  with  so  much  of 
the  proceeds  of  land  sales  as  would  defray  the  cost  of  the  erection  of 
county  buildings.43  In  the  following  year  Venango  County  received 
a  similar  grant,  limited  in  amount  to  $1,000.44  In  1811  the  Inspectors 
of  Prisons  of  Philadelphia  were  granted  $5,000  with  which  to  complete 
a  jail.45  But  such  grants  were  of  slight  fiscal  importance  during  this  per- 
iod. 

CONCLUSIONS  AND  SUMMARY 

During  the  first  seventeen  years  of  this  period  the  difficulty  of  col- 
lecting the  direct  tax  and  the  burden  of  the  war  debt  made  the  intro- 
duction of  a  subvention  system  on  a  large  scale  practically  impossible. 
The  occasions  for  making  grants  were,  however,  present.  The  attempts 
to  aid  colleges  and  academies  and  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Com- 
mon Schools  (1792)  show  this  clearly  enough.  But  since  the  state  trea- 
sury was  already  overburdened,  nothing  could  be  accomplished.  On 
the  other  hand  the  state  was  rich  in  lands  and  from  these  it  made  dona- 
tions in  aid  to  academies  and  colleges  until  the  futility  of  the  policy  was 
so  clearly  established  that  its  abandonment  was  accepted  by  all. 

During  the  latter  part  of  the  period  small  grants  of  money  were  made 
to  academies  and  to  localities  for  road  building.  All  these  grants  were 
•temporary  or  occasional.  Only  in  the  subvention  to  the  institution  for 
the  deaf  and  dumb  does  a  permanent  annual  grant  make  its  appearance. 
Another  outstanding  characteristic  of  the  subventions  at  this  time  was 
the  lack  of  control  by  the  grantor.  But  this  is  not  out  of  keeping  with 
the  more  lax  methods  of  conducting  public  business  which  prevailed  in 
state  and  local  governments  during  the  period  under  consideration. 

From  the  data  presented  the  conclusion  must  be  drawn  that  the  sub- 
ventions made  during  this  period  were  in  no  sense  the  results  of  a  general 

43  Act  25  Mar.,  1805,  P.L.  p.  121. 
"  Act  26  Mar.,  1806,  P.L.  p.  64. 
46  Act  2  April,  1811,  P.L.  p.  266. 


36  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

plan.  The  grants  were,  with  one  exception,  exceedingly  haphazard,  and 
there  is  no  evidence  now  extant  to  show  that  any  of  them  was  the  result 
of  a  thorough  investigation  or  serious  consideration  on  the  part  of  the 
legislature.  Many  must  be  regarded  as  successful  forays  upon  the 
treasury  by  the  representatives  of  certain  sections  of  the  state.  As  such 
they  were  supported  by  no  theory  of  politics  or  of  finance  except  the 
eminently  practical  one  that  to  the  victor  belong  the  spoils.  Subven- 
tions thus  obtained  were  not  always  without  merit  nor  can  we  condemn 
them  simply  because  political  manipulation  was  responsible  for  their 
existence  unless  we  are  prepared  to  subscribe  unreservedly  to  the  doc- 
trine of  tainted  money. 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE  BEGINNING  OF  PERMANENT  ANNUAL  GRANTS  FOR  EDUCATION 
AND  FOR  CHARITY,  1826  TO  1843 

THE  FINANCIAL  POLICY  or  THE  STATE,  1826  TO  1843 

The  financial  arrangements  which  characterized  this  period  of  the 
state's  history  were  so  unusual  and  had  such  important  effects  upon  the 
subventions  for  the  next  half  century  that  it  is  necessary  to  set  them 
forth  in  considerable  detail.  In  1826  was  begun  the  construction  of  the 
"state  works."  Previous  to  this  time  the  state  had  subscribed  freely 
to  the  stock  of  companies  engaged  in  building  roads  and  canals,  but  no 
important  projects  had  been  directly  undertaken.  About  1826,  how- 
ever, as  the  result  of  a  popular  demand  for  more  adequate  transportation 
lines,  the  state  began  the  construction  of  a  widespread  system  of  canals.1 

State  construction  and  operation  having  been  decided  upon,  the  next 
question  that  came  up  for  settlement  was  the  method  of  financing  the 
new  ventures.  Since  it  was  confidently  expected  that  the  public  works 
would  prove  exceedingly  profitable  in  the  near  future,  it  was  decided  to 
borrow  the  funds  for  their  construction  on  the  credit  of  the  state.  As  has 
been  pointed  out2  the  state  had  already  borrowed  large  sums  to  invest 
in  the  stock  of  private  corporations  engaged  in  similar  operations.3 
Borrowing  for  the  construction  of  state  works  was  not,  therefore,  regarded 
as  an  innovation.  And  assuming  that  the  opinion  commonly  held  as 
to  the  profitableness  of  the  works  was  a  sound  one,  the  policy  of  borrowing 
was  also  sound.  Practically  none  of  the  money  that  went  into  the  build- 
ing of  the  canals  came  from  taxation.  Worthington  has  shown  that 
until  the  state  received  the  bonus  for  rechartering  the  defunct  Bank  of 
The  United  States  as  a  state  corporation  and  the  deposit  of  the  surplus 
revenue  in  1837,  the  annual  expenditures  for  the  public  works  practically 
coincided  with  the  annual  amounts  of  the  loans.4  From  1839  to  1843 

1  For  a  detailed  account  of  the  popular  movement  for  direct  state  action  in  providing 
transportation  facilities,  see  Bishop,  TheState  Works  of  Pennsylvania,  Ch.  II.pp.  167-188. 

2  Supra,  p.  23. 

3  See  Pennsylvania  Archives,  IV  Ser.  V,  pp.  553  ff. 

4  See  diagrams  at  the  end  of  his  monograph. 

37 


38  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

large  loans  were  again  the  order  of  the  day  and  the  debt  of  the  state 
increased  from  $25,229,003,  in  1839,  to  $40,491,708,  in  1843.5 

The  interest  charge  upon  this  rapidly  increasing  debt  constituted, 
throughout  the  entire  period  (1826  to  1844),  the  largest  single  item 
in  the  current  expenses  of  the  state  government.  Had  the  canals  proved 
as  successful  as  the  public  expected,  a  large  part  of  the  annual  interest 
charge  would  have  been  defrayed  out  of  the  profits  from  operation.  But 
the  expectation  of  the  public  was  not  realized,  for  the  entire  available 
receipts  from  the  works  amounted  to  only  $9,287,000  for  the  years 
1826  to  1843,  while  the  interest  charge  for  those  years  amounted  to 
$16,231,000.6  It  was  necessary,  therefore,  to  secure  funds  for  the  pay- 
ment of  interest  from  other  sources. 

The  act  of  1826,  which  authorized  the  first  large  loan  for  the  con- 
struction of  the  canals,  provided  that  the  state  treasurer  should,  in  1826, 
pay  the  commissioners  of  the  internal  improvement  fund  an  amount 
sufficient  to  defray  the  interest  charges  on  loans  incurred  during  that 
year.  This  payment  was  to  be  made  from  the  proceeds  of  the  duties  on 
auctions.  After  1826  $30,000  of  the  proceeds  of  the  auction  duties,  the 
dividends  on  canal,  turn-pike  and  bridge  stock,  canal  tolls,  and  the  net 
proceeds  of  escheats  were  to  be  turned  over  to  the  commissioners  for  the 
payment  of  the  interest  and  for  the  redemption  of  the  principal  of  the 
loans.  The  commissioners  were  also  authorized  to  receive  all  appro- 
priations by  the  state  legislature,  and  donations  and  grants  by  Congress, 
by  individuals  and  corporations  for  internal  improvements  and  to  apply 
them  to  the  purposes  for  which  they  were  granted.7  The  defects  of  the 
provisions  for  the  payment  of  interest  are  so  obvious  and  have  been 
criticized  so  often  that  it  remains  only  to  point  out  that,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  the  duty  on  auctions,  the  revenues  assigned  to  the  commissioners 
were  all  of  uncertain  yield,  and  not  the  type  of  income  that  a  careful 
financier  would  select  for  meeting  a  fixed  charge. 

It  is  not  surprising,  then,  to  find  that  difficulty  was  soon  experienced 
in  paying  interest.  This  was  principally  due  to  the  fact  that  the  revenues 
were  not  adequate.  That  they  were  not  certain,  as  it  happened,  was  of 
minor  importance. 

6  Tenth  Census,  VII,  Valuation,  Taxation  and  Public  Indebtedness,  pp.  541-545. 
The  figures  include  relief  notes,  interest  certificates,  domestic  cfeditors'  certificates, 
and  the  funded  debt.    They  do  not  include  the  amount  of  the  surplus  revenue  de- 
posited by  the  U.  S.  Treasury. 

9  Bishop,  p.  222. 

7  Act  1  April,  1826,  P.L.  pp.  166-167. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 


39 


As  early  as  1829  short-time  loans  were  required  for  making  interest 
payments.8  In  1831  in  an  effort  to  remedy  the  situation  a  tax  was 
imposed  upon  all  real  estate  and  upon  certain  specified  kinds  of  personal 
property.9  The  yield  of  this  tax  in  1835  was  approximately  $209,000.10 
The  debt  at  that  time  amounted  to  about  twenty-four  and  one-half 
millions,11  and  the  interest  charge  at  5  per  cent  was  something  in  excess 
of  six  times  the  yield  of  the  tax  that  had  been  levied  to  aid  in  its  pay- 

8  Bishop,  p.  210. 

9  Eastman,  Taxation  for  State  Purposes,  p.  xi. 

10  The  yield  of  the  various  sources  of  state  revenue  for  certain  years  is  given  is 
the  following  table. 

INCOME  FROM  REVENUES  AND  FROM  LOANS  FOR  CERTAIN  YEARS 

1826  to  1842.' 
(in  thousands  of  dollars) 

1826    1830     1835     1842 

I.  All  Taxes 

1.  Auction  duties 

2.  Auction  commissions 

3.  Tax  on  bank  dividends 

4.  Tax  on  certain  offices 

5.  Tax  on  writs,  etc. 

6.  Collateral  inheritance  tax 

7.  Tax  on  real  and  personal  property 

8.  Tax  on  corporation  stocks 

9.  Tax  on  coal  companies 

10.  Tax  on  salaries 

II.  Licenses  and  Permits 

1.  Tavern  licenses 

2.  Dealers  in  foreign  mdse. 

3.  Pedlars 

4.  Retailers 

5.  Bonus  on  bank  charters 

6.  Brokers 

III.  Commercial  Receipts 

1.  Land  sales 

2.  Dividends  on  stocks  owned 

3.  Miscellaneous 

IV.  Canal  Tolls,  etc. 

V.  Miscellaneous  Receipts 

TOTAL  REVENUES 

LOANS  DURING  YEAR  299.9       5,707.0       1,750.6          934.7 

1  From  Reports  of  Auditors  General  and  State  Treasurers. 

11  $24,589,743,  exactly. 


163.6 

203.5 

417.6 

730.2 

108.8 

132.2 

57.2 

57.4 

20.7 

19.5 

10.9 

19.9 

23.3 

20.1 

68.5 

44.9 

10.8 

10.0 

13.8 

6.3 

3.0 

24.7 

37.7 

18.7 

32.2 

38.7 

209.0 

486.6 

37.1 

1.3 


1.6 

76.1 

96.6 

210.9 

141.9 

34.6 

44.3 

57.8 

50.3 

41.5 

51.6 

.7 

5.8 

1.9 

80.7 

84.2 

66.6 

5.5 

176.4 

272.1 

205.9 

57.9 

43.6 

120.1 

26.4 

21.8 

132.2 

151.4 

179.2 

35.8 

.6 

.6 

.3 

.3 

25.7 

684.4 

908.9 

11.6 

26.5 

4.2 

7.0 

427.8 

624.4 

1,523.0 

1,845.9 

40  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

ment.  Furthermore,  the  yield  of  other  revenues  devoted  to  the  payment 
of  the  interest  did  not  approach  by  many  thousands  of  dollars  the  amount 
needed.  If  the  interest  charge  of  about  $1,200,000  is  added  to  the 
expense  of  operating  the  state  government,  we  have  a  total  of  over 
$1,800,000,  which  was  greater  by  $300,000  than  the  total  income  of  the 
state  from  all  sources  except  loans.  The  policy  tentatively  adopted  in 
1829  of  borrowing  money  to  pay  interest  had,  by  1831,  become  the  con- 
firmed practice.  This  policy  may  be  explained,  if  we  remember  that  at 
that  time  scarcely  anyone  doubted  the  ultimate  success  of  the  public 
works;  that  it  was  a  time  of  most  reckless  speculation  in  private  business 
when  principles  of  sound  finance  seem  to  have  been  completely  ignored;12 
and  that  the  belief  was  prevalent  that  the  state  should  not  levy  direct 
taxes. 

In  1836  the  legislature  chartered  the  Bank  of  the  United  States,  re- 
ceiving in  return  for  the  privileges  granted  a  large  bonus  in  cash  and  a 
loan  for  the  internal  improvement  fund.13  In  the  same  year  Congress 
authorized  the  deposit  of  the  surplus  revenue  with  the  various  states, 
and  Pennsylvania  received  $2,867, 000.u  The  act  chartering  the  bank 
repealed  the  tax  on  real  and  personal  property,  but  the  state  soon  dis- 
sipated the  funds  that  were  so  easily  obtained,  and  the  tax  was  renewed 
with  slight  alterations  in  1840. 15  In  the  meantime  borrowing  to  pay 
interest  was  again  resorted  to. 

The  table  on  page  39  shows  that  in  1842  the  new  tax  yielded  $486,600, 
and  that  the  total  revenue  of  the  state — canal  tolls,  etc.,  excluded — was 
only  $937,000.  At  this  date  the  interest  on  the  debt  was  approximately 
$1,666,000.  Loans  to  pay  the  interest  were  necessary  and  the  state  was 
soon  in  serious  financial  difficulty.  In  the  following  year  interest  pay- 
ments were  suspended.  The  people  were  now  told  the  truth  about  the 
financial  prospects  of  the  public  works,  and  a  heavy  tax  was  levied  to 
pay  the  current  and  over-due  interest  on  the  state  debt. 

The  probable  effect  of  the  reckless  and  unsound  financial  policy  of 
the  state  during  these  years  upon  the  amount  and  character  of  the 
subventions  cannot  be  readily  determined.  At  first  sight  it  would  seem 
likely  that  the  unsuccessful  outcome  of  the  venture  in  public  ownership, 
and  the  resulting  embarrassment  of  the  treasury,  would  lead  to  parsimony 

12  For  a  good  contemporary  explanation  of  the  spirit  of  speculation  that  pre- 
vailed during  the  period,  see  No.  Amer.  Rev.  for  Jan.  1844,  LVIII,  pp.  109-157. 

13  Act  18  Feb.,  1836,  P.L.  pp.  36  ff. 

14  Tenth  Census,  VII,  Valuation,  Taxation  and  Public  Indebtedness,  p.  529. 
16  Eastman,  Taxation  for  State  Purposes,  p.  xiii. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  41 

in  state  expenditures.  Hence  the  time  would  be  very  unfavorable  for 
the  introduction  of  permanent  annual  subventions. 

On  the  other  hand,  many  of  the  political  events  of  the  time  made  the 
period  1826  to  1844  an  exceedingly  favorable  one  for  the  establishment 
of  subventions.  The  complete  confidence  of  the  officials,  and  of  the 
public  generally,  in  the  ultimate  success  of  the  canals16  led  them  to  anti- 
cipate large  profits  and  to  increase  state  appropriations  for  practically 
all  purposes  during  this  period.  Furthermore,  the  entrance  of  the  state 
into  the  industrial  field  and  the  expenditure  of  large  sums  on  the  canals 
very  naturally  tended  to  break  down  existing  prejudices  against  wider 
state  activity  and  to  justify  other  forms  of  public  enterprise  not  pre- 
viously engaged  in. 

The  development  of  an  adequate  state  tax  system  at  this  time  would, 
of  course,  have  made  subventions  possible  and  would,  in  large  part,  have 
avoided  bankruptcy  during  the  period  1842  to  1844.  The  failure  to 
levy  taxes  was  due,  in  part,  as  has  been  stated,  to  the  belief  that  the 
people  were  either  unable  to  bear  heavy  taxation,  or  that  they  were 
unwilling  to  submit  to  it.  And  the  politicians,  who  were  very  much 
interested  in  the  advancement  of  the  internal  improvement  schemes, 
naturally  feared  to  endanger  the  popularity  of  such  projects  by  levying 
obnoxious  direct  taxes  to  pay  interest  on  money  borrowed  for  the  con- 
struction of  the  improvements.  Again,  the  state  was  embarrassed  by 
its  inability  to  collect  the  taxes  that  were  levied,  even  when  it  needed 
them  most.  At  no  time  before  the  tax  act  of  1844  was  passed  did  the 
central  treasury  have  machinery  adequate  for  the  collection  of  direct 
taxes,  and  even  after  that  date,  the  development  of  such  machinery 
required  much  time  and  many  amendatory  acts  to  put  it  in  smooth 
running-order.  The  following  quotation  from  the  annual  message  of 
Governor  Porter,  in  1844,  illustrates  the  inefficiency  of  collection:  "The 
amount  of  taxes  levied  and  paid  into  the  State  Treasury,  under  existing 
laws  was  as  follows:  In  the  year  1841,  the  amount  levied  was  $416,794.85 ; 
there  was  paid  into  the  treasury  during  that  year  $33,292.77.  In  1842, 
the  tax  levied  was  $659,512.47;  the  amount  paid  in  the  same  year  was 
$486,635.85.  In  1843,  the  amount  levied  cannot  be  ascertained  with 
accuracy,  in  consequence  of  failures  on  the  part  of  county  commissioners 
in  several  counties  to  make  returns  to  the  proper  office;  but  making  an 
estimate  from  the  best  data  that  can  be  obtained,  it  will  not  fall  short  of 

16  For  expressions  of  such  belief  see  messages  of  governors :  Governor  Wolf,  1833, 
Pennsylvania  Archives,  IV  Ser.  VI,  125;  Governor  Ritner,  1836,  idem,  p.  309.  For 
a  less  sanguine  view  see  message  of  Governor  Porter,  1840,  idem.  p.  594. 


42  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

$945,000,00.  The  tax  paid  into  the  treasury  the  past  year  was 
$553,911.38.  "17  The  governor  also  explained  that  he  had  no  means  of 
enforcing  the  execution  of  the  tax  laws  in  those  counties  where  local 
negligence  or  local  opposition  resulted  in  inadequate  collection.18 

Without  attempting  to  pass  judgment  upon  the  causes  of  the  unfav- 
orable outcome  of  the  Pennsylvania  experiment  in  government  owner- 
ship of  the  means  of  transportation,  we  may  yet  characterize  the  financial 
policy  of  the  state  for  the  period  1826  to  1844.  In  the  first  place  the 
period  was  marked  by  a  great  increase  in  the  activities  of  the  state  gov- 
ernment. Expenditures  for  the  canals,  as  compared  with  previous 
outlays  by  the  state,  were  enormous;  payments  for  general  government 
also  grew  rapidly;  and  a  spirit  of  optimism  and  of  liberality  pervaded  the 
legislature  and  other  branches  of  government.  How  important  was  the 
influence  of  the  large  expenditures  for  the  public  works  in  accustoming 
the  people  to  more  liberal  appropriations  for  other  departments  cannot, 
of  course,  be  determined,  but  it  is  safe  to  say  that  when  millions  were 
paid  out  annually  for  canals,  less  attention  would  be  given  to  smaller 
payments,  even  though  they  were  characterized  by  extravagance  and  by 
inadequate  control. 

The  second  characteristic  of  the  period  was  the  method  employed 
to  raise  funds  to  meet  these  increasing  expenditures.  The  role  of  the 
direct  taxes  was  still  a  minor  one,  and  the  state  depended  for  its  receipts 
upon  loans,  upon  bonuses  paid  by  the  Bank  of  the  United  States,  and 
upon  the  surplus  deposited  with  the  commonwealth  by  the  federal  gov- 
ernment. The  people  were  not  made  to  feel,  by  heavy  direct  taxation, 
the  effect  of  large  expenditures.  The  principal  check  upon  extravagance 
known  to  public  finance  was  thus  absent. 

In  the  third  place  the  spirit  of  optimism  and  financial  irresponsibility 
that  seemed  to  pervade  the  entire  community  led  in  public  as  well  as  in 
private  finance,  to  a  growing  disregard  for  the  principles  of  sound  account- 
ing and  of  commonsense  business  practice. 

It  is  evident  that  in  so  far  as  the  financial  policy  of  the  state  involved 
indiscriminate  appropriations  the  way  was  open  for  both  permanent  and 
occasional  grants.  Furthermore,  the  aversion  of  the  people  to  local 
direct  taxation  would  naturally  lead  those  who  sought  to  introduce  new 
local  services,  or  to  develop  existing  ones,  to  appeal  to  the  more  liberal 
state  government  for  aid.  And  finally  the  lack  of  responsibility  in  state 

17  Pennsylvania  Archives,  IV  Ser.  VI,  p.  994. 

18  Ibid. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  43 

finances  would  permit  the  establishment  of  such  subventions  as  were 
introduced  without  the  application  of  central  audit  or  control. 

GRANTS  FOR  CHARITY,  1826  TO  1844 

The  first  local  service  to  receive  aid  from  the  state  treasury,  during 
this  period,  was  that  of  charitable  relief.  But  it  must  not  be  supposed 
that  the  state  contributed  to  the  support  of  common  paupers.  The 
charities  first  aided  were  those  that  were  engaged  in  assisting  special 
classes  of  indigents.  The  education  of  the  children  of  poor  parents  in 
Pennsylvania,  during  the  colonial  and  early  state  history  was  generally 
looked  upon  as  a  form  of  poor  relief.  The  constitution  of  1790  required 
the  legislature  to  provide  schools  wherein  the  "poor  may  be  taught 
gratis";  and  the  law  of  1809  and  its  amendments  placed  such  education 
as  was  provided  in  the  category  of  charitable  assistance.  The  child  who 
attended  local  schools  and  had  his  tuition  paid  in  accordance  with  such 
laws  was  as  much  a  recipient  of  poor  relief  in  the  eyes  of  the  law  as  was 
the  indigent  who  sought  aid  of  the  directors  of  the  poor.  At  no  time 
did  the  state  offer  direct  assistance  to  the  localities  in  the  education  of 
the  poor  under  this  system,  and  an  examination  of  the  policy  pursued 
under  it,  finds  no  place  in  a  discussion  of  subventions.  When  the  state 
first  undertook  to  aid  the  localities  in  the  provision  of  free  education, 
one  of  the  modifications  made*  in  the  existing  system  was  the  removal 
of  the  stigma  of  "poor  relief"  from  the  schools  by  opening  them  to  all 
children  of  school  age,  rich  and  poor  alike. 

In  order  to  present  concretely  the  subject  matter  of  this  section  and 
to  limit  the  field  of  investigation,  use  will  be  made  of  a  schematic  classi- 
fication of  indigents  requiring  public  assistance.  Indigent  persons 
may  be  classified  as  follows:19 

I.  Indigent  Defectives 

1.  Deaf  mutes 

2.  The  blind 

3.  The  insane 

4.  The  idiotic  and  feeble-minded 

5.  Epileptics 

19  Adapted  from  a  classification  given  by  Henderson,  Modern  Methods  of  Charily, 
p.  396.  Mr.  Henderson  did  not  include  1.8,  but  there  is  no  good  reason  for  including 
the  inebriate  and  excluding  the  indigent  who,  because  of  some  incurable  disease  has 
become  a  charge  upon  society,  and  who  is  now  usually  cared  for  in  institutions  adapted 
for  the  purpose.  In  the  original,  there  are  no  sub-classes  under  III. 


44  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

6.  Inebriates 

7.  Consumptives 

8.  Other  indigent  persons  incapacitated  by  illness 
II.  Neglected  and  abused  children 

III.  Mentally  and  physically  normal  adults  in  extreme  indigence 

1.  Those  requiring  occasional  relief,  chiefly  outdoor  relief 

2.  The  inmates  of  almshouses 

3.  The  aged  poor 

At  the  present  time  there  is  no  clear  line  of  demarcation  between 
"education"  and  "charity"  in  the  case  of  expenditures  for  teaching 
the  blind  and  the  deaf-mutes.  If,  as  is  commonly  asserted,  the  state 
is  under  obligation  to  provide  for  industrial  education  in  the  larger  cities — 
for  the  instruction  of  a  special  class  in  particular  localities — it  seems  equal- 
ly clear  that  it  is  also  under  obligation  to  provide  special  facilities  for 
the  training  of  those  who  happen  to  be  without  sight  or  the  powers  of 
hearing  and  speech.  In  both  cases  the  principal  argument  for  the  estab- 
lishment of  special  schools  is  that  the  class  to  be  benefited  cannot  gain 
proper  training  in  the  general  system  of  common  schools  and  that  with- 
out this  training  they  will  become  inefficient  members  of  society.  The 
expenditures  for  the  education  of  the  blind  and  of  the  deaf-mutes  might 
well  be  classed  with  payments  for  common  schools  at  the  present  time. 

When  schools  for  these  special  classes  were  first  established  in  Penn- 
sylvania, all  pupils  whose  parents  could  afford  the  expense  were  charged 
for  tuition  and  maintenance;  but  the  state,  and  charitably  inclined 
individuals,  undertook  to  provide  for  the  education  of  those  whose 
parents  were  unable  to  pay.  Hence  it  seems  better  to  treat  subsidies 
for  the  support  of  such  schools  as  payments  for  charity. 

In  Pennsylvania  during  this  period  the  deaf  and  dumb  and  the  blind 
were  the  only  classes  of  indigents  that  consistently  received  assistance 
from  the  state.  Public  opinion  had  not  progressed  far  enough  to  permit 
of  the  provision  of  free  treatment  for  such  classes  as  the  indigent  sick 
(common  hospital  cases)  or  consumptives.  It  must  not  be  inferred, 
however,  that  no  provision  was  made  for  taking  care  of  other  sorts  of 
charity  cases,  such  as  the  sick,  orphans,  the  insane,  and  the  adult  blind 
and  deaf  and  dumb.  Sometimes  they  were  taken  care  of  by  private 
institutions,  and  that  failing  they  were,  in  practically  all  communities, 
herded  together  indiscriminately  in  the  common  almshouse. 

As  was  pointed  out  in  Chapter  III,  the  first  attempt  on  the  part  of 
the  state  to  provide  special  treatment  for  defectives  resulted  in  the 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  45 

establishment  of  the  Institution  for  the  Deaf  and  Dumb.  This  school 
was  established  at  Philadelphia,  with  state  aid,  in  182  1.20  The  policy 
inaugurated  in  dealing  with  it  was  continued  throughout  the  period 
1826  to  1844. 

The  Institution  for  the  Instruction  of  the  Blind,  which  was  incor- 
porated in  1834,21  was,  with  respect  to  its  general  purpose,  modeled  after 
the  Institution  for  the  Deaf  and  Dumb.  The  former  school  had  its 
beginning  in  the  work  of  a  German,  Julius  R.  Friedlander,  who  with  the 
support  of  local  philanthropy  had  begun  to  instruct  the  blind  in  Phila- 
delphia as  early  as  1832.22  The  school  was  aided  by  many  people  of 
that  city,  and  in  1834  the  state  agreed  to  contribute  to  its  support.  As 
in  the  case  of  the  earlier  institution  for  defectives,  the  school  for  the 
blind  probably  gained  much  financial  support  by  being  largely  education- 
al in  character.  The  fact  that  it  was  situated  in  the  only  large  city 
of  the  state  and  had  the  approval  of  the  charitably  inclined  of  that  city 
must  have  contributed  to  its  success  in  obtaining  aid  from  the  legislature. 
But  more  potent  than  any  of  these  facts  was  the  offer  of  individuals  to 
contribute  to  its  permanent  support.  The  policy  of  assisting  academies 
and  colleges  was  well  established;  and  in  appropriating  money  for  the  aid 
of  a  school  that  was  assisted  by  contributions  from  individuals  the  leg- 
islature was  not  making  an  entirely  new  departure.  Then  too,  the 
grant  to  the  Institution  for  the  Deaf  and  Dumb,  established  in  1821, 
constituted  a  precedent  had  one  been  needed. 

The  Institution  for  the  Blind  was  liberally  dealt  with  when  the  sub- 
subscribers  were  incorporated  in  1834.  An  unconditional  grant  of 
$10,000  was  made  to  the  corporation  to  aid  in  constructing  a  permanent 
home;  and  a  further  payment  of  $10,000  was  to  be  made  from  the  state 
treasury  if  the  managers  were  able  to  raise  in  cash,  by  private  subscrip- 
tion, $20,000  for  an  endowment.  The  state  also  agreed  to  pay  annually 
$160  for  the  training  of  each  indigent  pupil  who  was  a  resident  of  Penn- 
sylvania. Three  conditions  were  placed  upon  this  annual  subsidy:  the 
total  payment  by  the  state  was  not  to  exceed  $9,000  annually;  no  pupil 
could  remain  in  the  school  at  state  expense  for  a  longer  period  than  six 
years;  and  the  duration  of  the  subsidy  was  limited  to  six  years.  The 
last  provision  may  have  been  inserted  to  indicate  that  after  that  period, 
the  institution  should  be  compelled  to  depend  upon  private  benefactions. 
It  is  more  likely,  however,  that  it  was  intended  to  prevent  the  appro- 


21  Act  27  January,  1834,  P.L.  pp.  16-18. 

22  Wickersham,  p.  444. 


46  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

priation  from  becoming  permanent  without  further  legislative  action. 
The  limitation  of  the  subsidy  to  $9,000  annually  was  obviously  for  the 
purpose  of  fixing  an  upper  limit  to  the  state's  responsibility;  while  the 
provision  concerning  the  length  of  time  a  pupil  might  remain  at  the 
school  at  state  expense,  indicates  clearly  the  educational  character  of 
the  institution;  it  was  not  to  become  a  state  home  for  the  blind. 

Table  I  in  the  Appendix  shows  the  trend  of  the  grants  to  the  Insti- 
tution for  the  Blind  and  to  the  school  for  the  deaf  and  dumb.  The 
amount  appropriated  by  the  Assembly  did  not,  of  course,  fluctuate  so 
much  over  short  periods  as  the  table  indicates,  since  the  statistics  are 
for  actual  payments,  and  the  irregularity  of  the  state  treasurer  in  making 
annual  payments  sometimes  caused  a  part  of  the  legislative  appropria- 
tion for  one  year  to  appear  in  the  receipts  of  the  institution  with  that 
for  the  following  year. 

The  annual  state  subsidy  to  the  institution  for  the  deaf-mutes  re- 
mained throughout  this  period  at  $160  for  each  indigent  child  main- 
tained at  the  school.  The  same  amount  was  granted  to  the  Institution 
for  the  Blind  when  it  was  established.  In  1836,  however,  on  the  repre- 
sentation of  the  managers  of  the  school  that  the  annual  cost  of  educating 
a  blind  child  was  greater  than  that  of  educating  of  a  deaf-mute,23  the 
legislature  increased  the  subsidy  to  $200.24  Increases  in  the  subsidy 
paid  each  school  must  therefore  have  been  due  to  an  increasing  number 
of  state  pupils  or  to  occasional  grants  for  permanent  outlays  or  for  the 
liquidation  of  indebtedness. 

The  history  of  the  grant  to  the  older  institution  is  quite  uneventful 
for  the  years  1826  to  1834.  In  the  latter  year,  however,  a  distinct  up- 
ward trend  that  culminates  in  the  extravagant  years  of  1837-38  sets 
in.  The  usual  appropriation  was  then  more  than  doubled.  These 
augmented  payments  were  utilized  to  extend  the  scope  of  the  school 
and  to  pay  off  accumulated  indebtedness. 

The  amount  of  the  subsidy  paid  to  the  Institution  for  the  Blind  shows 
the  same  general  trend  as  that  paid  to  the  school  for  deaf-mutes.  In 
the  same  year  that  the  annual  payment  for  state  pupils  in  the  former 
was  increased  to  $200,  the  conditions  for  maintaining  children  at  state 
expense  were  made  less  exacting  in  both  schools.  The  age  of  admission 
for  deaf-mutes  was  fixed  at  ten  years,  but  none  could  remain  after  his 
twentieth  year;  the  number  of  years  that  a  pupil  might  be  educated  at 

23  See  Institution  for  the  Blind,  Annual  Report  (1838),  p.  24,  for  reiteration  of 
this  argument. 

'<  Act  31  March,  1836,  P.L.  p.  328. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  47 

state  expense  was  increased  from  five  to  six  years,  and  the  limitation  of 
a  maximum  subsidy  of  $9,000  annually  was  removed.25  At  the  same 
session  of  the  General  Assembly,  the  maximum  period  during  which  any 
indigent  child  might  be  educated  at  state  expense  in  the  school  for  the 
blind  was  increased  to  eight  years.26  This  liberalizing  of  the  conditions, 
under  which  the  state  grant  might  be  claimed,  was  due,  no  doubt,  to 
the  prosperity  of  the  treasury  at  that  time,  and  in  part  to  the  success 
of  the  schools  in  achieving  the  objects  for  which  they  were  organized. 

The  relative  share  of  the  state  in  the  cost  of  operating  the  two  schools 
is  shown  by  the  table  on  the  following  page.  From  all  appearances27 
the  older  institution  had  been  more  liberally  dealt  with  than  had  the 
institution  for  the  blind.  Whether  it  had  received  a  larger  subsidy  in 
proportion  to  its  needs,  or  in  proportion  to  its  actual  achievement, 
cannot  be  determined. 

The  table  on  page  48  shows  clearly  that  in  the  case  of  the  older 
institution  the  relative  contribution  of  the  state  to  the  total  annual 
revenue  increased  steadily  during  the  years  1825  to  1844.  In  the  latter 
year  practically  no  assistance  was  received  from  private  bequests  and 
donations,  the  revenue  of  the  school  being  derived  from  the  state  subsidy, 
from  pay  pupils,  and  from  payments  of  other  states  for  their  indigent 
children  educated  in  the  school.  In  fact,  the  institution  seems  to  have 
assumed  a  commercial  role  and  to  have  bid  openly  for  the  patronage  of 
other  states,  charging  the  same  amount  as  was  paid  by  Pennsylvania, 
for  her  indigent  scholars.28 

The  managers  of  this  school  recognized  that  they  had  been  deserted 
by  the  charitable  people  of  their  own  city.  An  urgent  "APPEAL" 
for  donations  and  bequests,  published  in  their  Annual  Report  for  1842,2* 
deplores  the  lack  of  interest  in  their  work  exhibited  by  the  public  gen- 
erally. Whether  or  not  the  decline  of  private  giving  was  caused  by 
the  increasing  liberality  of  the  state  cannot  be  definitely  determined. 
The  statistics  of  receipts  would  seem  to  indicate  that  such  was  the 
case;  but  the  failure  of  the  school  to  attract  any  considerable  number 
of  important  bequests  might  well  be  due  to  causes  entirely  independent 
of  the  feeling  that  there  was  no  need  for  the  support  of  individuals. 

28  Act  4  April,  1838,  P.L.  p.  265. 

29  Act  14  April,  1838,  P.L.  p.  398. 
"See  Table  I,  Appendix. 

28  Institution  for  the  Deaf  and  Dumb,  Annual  Report  (1842),  p.  9. 
89  Idem,  p.  12. 


48 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 


RECEIPTS  OF  THE  INSTITUTION  FOR  THE  DEAF  A  ND  DUMB  FROM  THE 

STATE  TREASURY  AND  FROM  OTHER  SOURCES, 

FOR  CERTAIN  YEARS,  1825-1844* 


Receipts 

1825 

1840 

1842 

1844 

From  the  state 

$7954 

$0990 

$11285 

$11  000 

Pay  pupils  of  other  states 

906 

3  124 

3  206 

3  563 

Other  pay  pupils  

1,558 

2  633 

2  580 

2240 

Donations  and  income  from  investments  
Subscriptions  and  gifts  

2,123 
2,263 

148 

78 

436 

300 
34 

Miscellaneous     

993 

906 

377 

229 

Total  

$15,797 

$16,879 

$  17,884 

$17,366 

RECEIPTS  OF  THE  INSTITUTION  FOR  THE  BLIND  FROM  THE 

STATE  TREASURY  AND  FROM  OTHER  SOURCES, 

FOR  CERTAIN  YEARS,  1835-1844 


Receipts 

1835 

1838 

1841 

1844 

From  the  state 
For  maintenance  

$     666 

$  5  421 

$4  104 

Sll  042 

For  buildings  

10,000 

10000 

Pay  pupils  and  from  other  states  

307 

400 

2  778 

1  492 

Donations                               .    . 

10449 

558 

Annual  subscriptions  

663 

330 

184 

Interest  on  investments  

307 

751 

238 

8  516 

IVIiscellaneous 

1  183 

358 

1  167 

1  737 

Total 

$13,126 

$27  379 

$9  175 

$22  971 

1  These  statistics  are  taken  from  the  Annual  Reports  of  the  institutions  to  the 
legislature.  Receipts  from  loans  and  from  the  sale  of  property  have  been  excluded. 
The  composition  of  "miscellaneous"  is:  doubtful  items,  sale  of  manufactured  articles, 
and  labor  of  inmates.  The  data  in  the  original  report  are  so  badly  confused  and  so 
meagre  that  only  the  roughest  kind  of  comparisons  can  be  made.  The  receipts  from 
the  state  do  not  agree  with  the  amounts  given  in  Table  I,  Appendix,  chiefly  because 
the  fiscal  years  of  the  institutions  were  different  from  that  of  the  state. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  49 

In  the  case  of  the  Institution  for  the  Blind,  as  can  be  seen  from  the 
table  on  page  48,  the  tendency  of  private  giving  was  just  the  opposite. 
As  the  school  grew  older  and  the  state  appropriation  increased,  the  in- 
come from  legacies  and  from  donations  also  increased,  both  absolutely  and 
proportionately.  A  large  part  of  this  income  was,  however,  derived  from 
the  benefactions  of  a  single  man,30  and  the  benevolent  interest  of  one 
wealthy  patron  is  by  no  means  so  significant  as  the  growth  of  indifference 
on  the  part  of  the  general  public.  The  conclusion  that  may  be  drawn 
from  the  experiences  of  both  schools  relative  to  the  effect  of  state  support 
upon  private  giving  is,  therefore,  a  negative  one.  As  far  as  the  evidence 
goes  it  does  not  show  that  private  giving  was  greatly  discouraged  by 
the  introduction  of  state  aid. 

The  state  did  not  have  a  share  in  the  management  of  either  institu- 
tion commensurate  with  its  contributions.  The  managers  and  the 
officers  of  both  were  elected  or  appointed  by  the  subscribers,  and  no 
state  administrative  officer  had,  during  this  early  period,  any  voice 
in  the  management.  This  statement  applies  not  only  to  the  methods 
of  instruction  employed,  but  also  to  financial  arrangements  and  to  the 
selection  of  the  personnel  of  the  official  staffs.  Both  institutions  were 
required  to  make  an  annual  report  to  the  legislature,  but  so  meager  was 
this  document  that  it  cannot  be  regarded  as  furnishing  that  body  with 
satisfactory  information  as  to  actual  administration.  It  consisted  of 
only  a  few  pages  devoted  to  a  financial  statement  and  a  brief  outline  of 
the  instructional  policy  of  the  school,  together  with  a  list  of  the  pupils 
and  numerous  self-laudatory  passages  for  the  consumption  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  General  Assembly. 

Not  only  was  state  control  quite  lacking  with  regard  to  the  educa- 
tional policy  of  both  schools,  but  formal  audit  of  their  accounts  by  a 
representative  of  the  state  was  also  absent.  The  central  government 
not  only  expended  money  for  services,  the  standards  of  which  it  could 
not  control,  but  it  also  contributed  that  money  for  the  support  of  the 
schools  under  such  defective  arrangements  that  misapplication  could 
not  have  been  prevented.  Despite  this  lack  of  audit  by  authorities 
representing  the  state,  there  seems  to  be  no  evidence  that  these  funds 
were  not  faithfully  applied  for  the  benefit  of  the  indigent  state  pupils 
and  to  serve  such  other  purposes  as  the  legislature  designated. 

Relief  of  the  second  class  of  indigents,  neglected  and  abused  children, 
was  carried  on  during  this  period,  for  the  most  part,  without  contribu- 

30  See  Annual  Report  (1841),  p.  5. 


50  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

tion  from  the  state.  There  were  two  excepions  to  this  general  policy. 
In  1838,  after  the  General  Assembly  had  become  recklessly  extravagant 
in  expending  the  revenue  derived  from  the  chartering  of  the  Bank  of 
the  United  States  and  from  the  deposit  of  the  surplus  federal  revenue, 
an  act  was  passed  granting  to  the  president  and  managers  of  the  Orphan 
Asylum  Society  of  Pittsburg  and  Allegheny,  $1,000  annually  for  ten 
years.31  This  amount  was  to  be  paid  out  of  the  dividends  on  stock  owned 
by  the  state  in  the  Allegheny  Bridge  Company.  At  the  same  session 
the  Orphan  Asylum  of  Lancaster  received  a  grant  similar  in  amount  and 
duration.32  These  subsidies  were  practically  unconditional  grants  with- 
out audit  or  control.  Both  grants  were  discontinued  when  financial 
disaster  overtook  the  state.  Had  the  treasury  continued  prosperous, 
it  is  probable  that  a  considerable  number  of  such  subsidies  would 
have  arisen  at  this  early  date.  This  conjecture  is  supported  by  an  act 
passed  by  the  legislature  in  1838,  which  authorized  a  subsidy  of 
$25,000  to  the  Western  Pennsylvania  Hospital  Society  (of  Pittsburg), 
on  condition  that  a  similar  amount  should  be  subscribed  by  the  people 
of  Pittsburg.33 

Another  type  of  local  service  receiving  aid  from  the  state  during  this 
period,  while  not  strictly  a  form  of  charitable  relief,  had  also  to  do  with 
the  provision  of  proper  environment  and  training  for  neglected  children. 
Investigations  about  1824  had  shown  that  the  local  jails  and  prisons 
contained  many  juvenile  offenders  and  incorrigible  children,  who,  instead 
of  receiving  elementary  education  and  training  in  a  trade,  were  in  many 
cases  becoming  professional  criminals.  In  response  to  a  local  demand 
the  legislature  in  1826  incorporated  subscribers  to  establish  an  institu- 
tion in  Philadelphia  for  the  reformation  of  juvenile  delinquents.34  The 
purpose  of  the  institution  was  to  provide  moral  training,  instruction  in 

31  Act  14  Feb.,  1838,  P.L.  p.  12. 

32  Act  4  April,  1838,  P.L.  pp.  264-265.    This  was  another  section  of  the  act  which 
provided  for  the  incorporation  of  the  Lancaster  orphanage. 

33  Idem,  pp.  263-264.    The  Hospital  was  to  be  governed  by  a  board  of  nine  mana- 
gers, three  of  whom  were  to  be  elected  by  the  stockholders,  three  appointed  by  the 
mayor  and  common  council  of  Pittsburg,  and  three  by  the  governor  of  the  state.    The 
hospital  was  designed  to  serve  the  "destitute,  sick  and  insane  of  Western  Pennsyl- 
vania. "     No  record  of  any  payment  to  this  society  can  be  discovered  in  the  reports 
of  the  Auditor  General,  and  since  the  grant  was  not  repealed,  it  may  be  assumed 
that  the  local  subscription  failed  to  materialize. 

3«  Act  23  March,  1826,  P.L.  p.  134. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  51 

elementary  branches,  and  knowledge  of  a  trade  or  occupation  for  such 
children  as  were  committed  to  its  care.35 

In  1827  the  subscribers  succeeded  in  convincing  the  legislature  that 
the  service  they  were  rendering  was  of  sufficient  public  interest  to  justify 
assistance  from  the  central  treasury,  and  a  grant  of  $10,000,  payable  in 
installments  within  three  years,  was  made  for  their  benefit.36  After  this 
amount  had  been  paid,  the  state  made  no  further  subsidies  until  1832, 
when  an  annual  grant  of  $5,000  was  authorized  to  continue  until  1835.37 
It  seems  quite  clear  from  the  language  of  the  law  making  the  original 
grant  that  the  intention  of  the  legislature  was  to  assist  the  managers  of 
the  institution  in  acquiring  a  permanent  plant,  rather  than  to  create  an 
annual  subsidy. 

At  the  time  the  state  agreed  to  contribute  to  the  original  establish- 
ment, the  City  and  County  of  Philadelphia  was  required  to  pay  $10,000 
to  the  corporation  within  two  years  and  $5,000  annually  thereafter.38 
One  reason  for  requiring  Phildadelphia  to  assist  in  establishing  and 
maintaining  the  House  of  Refuge  is  clear,  if  we  remember  that  a  majority 
of  the  inmates  of  the  institution  were  likely  to  come  from  her  jails  and 
almshouses.  Again,  the  institution  was  located  in  that  city,  and  the 
local  contribution  may  have  been  necessary  to  overcome  the  objections 
of  members  of  the  legislature  from  other  counties.  Children  committed 
from  counties  other  than  Philadelphia  were  required  to  be  maintained 
"at  the  public  expense  of  the  proper  county."39  The  payment  by  Phila- 
delphia was  increased  by  the  act  of  1830  to  $10,000.40  Two  years  later 

35  For  a  good  exposition  of  the  purposes  for  which  the  House  was  conducted  see 
the  opinion  of  the  court  in  Ex  parte  Grouse,  4  Wharton  11,  (1839),  a  case  in  which  a  writ 
of  habeas  corpus  was  denied  although  the  person  for  whose  benefit  the  action  was 
brought  had  not  been  convicted  of  any  offense  in  court,  before  being  committed  to 
the  House. 

On  the  whole,  since  the  children  dealt  with  were  placed  in  the  institution,  not  be- 
cause they  were  in  need  of  education  but  because  they  either  already  were,  or  were  in 
danger  of  becoming  criminals,  the  service  performed  by  the  corporation  controlling 
the  House  should  be  regarded  as  reformatory,  rather  than  educational.  The  same 
argument  would  serve  to  show  that  the  service  was  not  strictly  charitable;  although 
there  is  an  element  of  both  education  and  charity  contained  in  it. 
38  Act  2  March,  1827,  P.L.  pp.  76-79. 

37  Act  30  March,  1832,  P.L.  pp.  224-225. 

38  Sees.  II  &  III,  Act  2  March,  1827,  P.L.  pp.  77-78. 

39  Sec.  IV,  Act  2  March,  1827,  P.L.  p.  78. 

"House  of  Refuge,  Report  (1830),  Treasurer's  Report;  also  Act  27  March,  1830, 
P.I.  p.  134. 


52  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

the  state  agreed  to  contribute  $5,000  annually  until  1835.  This  grant  was 
continued  from  time  to  time  and  from  1832  to  1844  the  amount  appro- 
priated annually  was  $5,000.  In  the  latter  year  only  $4,000  was  actually 
paid  because  of  the  depleted  condition  of  the  state  treasury. 

Thus  the  grant  to  this  institution  developed  from  an  occasional 
subvention  for  buildings  into  a  subvention  for  current  expenses  for  a 
limited  period  of  years,  and  finally  into  an  annual  permanent  subven- 
tion for  maintenance.  The  progress  of  the  grant  through  these  three 
stages  indicates  the  changing  attitude  of  the  assembly  toward  this 
particular  charity.  At  first  it  was  regarded  as  a  worthy  private  charity 
of  sufficient  public  interest  to  warrant  the  state  in  assisting  iri  its  estab- 
lishment; but  the  assembly  was  not  ready  to  assume  financial  respon- 
sibility for  its  continuance.  In  the  next  stage  the  assembly  made  a 
grant  for  maintenance  to  assist  the  institution  during  a  temporary  finan- 
cial embarrassment;  and  in  the  last  stage  the  central  government  assumed 
partial  responsibility  for  the  continuance  of  the  charity. 

This  development  was  brought  about  by  several  causes.  In  the 
first  place  the  institution  had  demonstrated  that  it  was  better  fitted  to 
care  for  and  to  reform  unruly  children  than  were  the  common  prisons. 
In  the  second  place  the  spirit  of  extravagance,  which  pervaded  the  state 
appropriations  during  this  period,  led  to  greater  and  greater  liberality; 
and  in  the  third  place,  once  the  state  had  invested  in  the  building  of  the 
institution  it  was  financially  committed  to  support  it  in  a  time  of  need, 
in  order  that  the  original  investment  might  not  be  lost.41  The  last 
statement  merely  puts  concretely  the  general  principle  that  if  govern- 
ments begin  to  make  occasional  appropriations  for  a  given  service  a 
claim  is  likely  to  be  established  for  permanent  support. 

The  original  incorporation  act  provided  for  the  management  of  the 
institution  by  a  board  of  twenty-one  managers,  elected  by  the  subscrib- 
ers, who  in  turn  chose  the  officers  of  administration  and  of  instruction.42 
But  in  1832,  after  the  annual  payment  by  the  City  and  County  of  Phila- 
delphia had  been  increased  and  the  state  subsidy  renewed,  the  court 
of  quarter  sessions  of  the  county  in  which  the  institution  was  located 
was  authorized  to  appoint  three  additional  managers,  and  the  mayor  of 
the  city  of  Philadelphia  two.13  Thus  local  administrative  bodies  were 
given  the  power  to  appoint  five  out  of  the  twenty-six  directors  of  the 
corporation.  In  any  matter  involving  the  conduct  of  business  they 

41  House  of  Refuge,  Report  (1830),  Treasurer's  Statement. 

«  Act  23  March,  1826,  P.L.  p.  134. 

«  Act  30  March,  1832,  P.L.  pp.  224-225. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  53 

would  have  been  hopelessly  out-voted  by  the  directors  elected  by  the 
subscribers,  and  it  must  be  concluded  that  their  function  was  to  provide 
the  proper  authorities  with  information  rather  than  to  control  the 
management  of  the  institution.  The  act  of  1826  required  a  report  each 
year  to  the  state  legislature,44  but,  as  was  the  case  with  the  schools  for 
defectives,  the  reports  were  too  meagre  to  afford  that  body  much  real 
information. 

So  brief  are  the  financial  statements  contained  in  the  annual  reports 
that  it  is  difficult  to  draw  conclusions  concerning  the  effect  of  the  state 
subvention  upon  the  finances  of  the  institution.  During  the  three 
years  1827  to  1829  inclusive  while  building  was  going  on,  the  state 
contributed  about  22  per  cent  of  all  receipts,  loans  excluded  and  the 
city  and  county  of  Philadelphia  contributed  33  per  cent.  Subscriptions 
and  donations  from  individuals  made  up  the  remainder.45  During  the 
years  1835  to  1844  the  amount  contributed  by  the  state  remained  at 
$5,000  annually.  Since  the  total  receipts  of  the  institution  increased 
about  50  per  cent  during  these  years,  the  proportion  paid  by  the  state 
declined  from  34  per  cent  in  the  former  year  to  23  per  cent  in  the  latter. 
The  amount  contributed  by  Philadelphia  increased  from  $5,000  to  $9,000 
or  from  34  per  cent  to  42  per  cent.  The  contributions  of  individuals 
varied  greatly  from  year  to  year,  while  the  income  from  permanent 
investments,  though  never  large,  increased  slowly.  Receipts  from  the 
labor  of  the  boys  detained  in  the  home  declined  as  the  institution 
became  more  educational  and  less  penal  in  character.46 

As  in  the  case  of  the  institutions  for  the  training  of  the  blind  and  the 
deaf-mutes,  the  data  that  are  now  extant  do  not  permit  drawing  definite 
conclusions  as  to  the  effect  of  the  subvention  upon  individual  donations. 
It  is  possible  to  state,  however,  that  the  amount  contributed  by  indivi- 
duals was  proportionately  more  important  during  the  years  when  the 
home  was  beginning  than  it  was  from  1835  to  1844.47  But  the  contribu- 
tions of  individuals  would  naturally  be  larger  during  those  years  when 
the  corporation  was  greatly  in  need  of  funds  for  building  purposes.  On 

«  Sec.  VII,  Act  of  1S26,  P.L.  p.  135. 

46  House  of  Refuge,  Report  (1830),  Treasurer's  Statement. 

4«  From  the  Annual  Reports  of  the  House  of  Refuge,  1835  to  1844.  Chiefly  from 
the  summary  statement  of  the  treasurer  of  the  corporation.  In  several  instances 
the  data  given  by  the  treasurer  are  at  variance  with  the  statements  of  the  Auditor 
General  of  the  state  with  reference  to  the  amount  of  the  subvention  paid  in  given 
years. 

47  Ibid. 


54  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

the  whole,  there  is  no  evidence  to  show  that  contributions  on  the  part 
of  the  state  discouraged  individual  interest. 

The  reasons  for  state  participation  seem  not  to  have  been  those 
which  have  been  so  potent  in  bringing  about  subventions  to  common 
schools  in  recent  years.  There  was  no  mention  of  the  effect  of  such 
contributions  upon  the  equalization  of  tax  burdens.  Nor  is  there 
evidence  to  show  that  the  state  provided  a  subvention  for  the  purpose 
of  obtaining  a  voice  in  the  government  of  the  institution.  In  fact,  the 
indications  are  that  no  such  reason  was  entertained,  since  only  the  mildest 
sort  of  supervision  was  imposed. 

It  is  fairly  clear  that  the  state  assisted  the  schools  for  the  blind  and 
the  deaf-mutes,  and  the  home  for  wayward  children  because  all  three  were 
new  departures  in  the  matter  of  charitable  relief,  and  because  all  three 
were  performing  services  that  commanded  public  approval.  The  sub- 
ventions were  small  and  no  elaborate  reasons  in  addition  to  those  just 
advanced  were  necessary  to  justify  the  appropriations.  It  may  be 
asked  at  this  point  why  the  state  did  not  establish  the  institutions 
and  take  full  charge  of  the  services  they  provided.  Several  considera- 
tions prevented  such  action.  In  the  first  place  the  teaching  of  the  blind 
was  at  that  time  still  in  the  experimental  stage,  and  a  wider  range  of 
experimentation  was  possible  in  a  private  than  in  a  public  institution. 
As  a  rule  it  is  not  advisable  for  the  state  to  take  over  a  branch  of  chari- 
table relief  until  at  least  tentative  standards  have  been  established  in 
private  institutions.  A  further  reason  for  the  failure  of  the  state  to 
develop  institutions  is  that  such  action  would  probably  not  have  been 
supported  by  the  people  of  the  state.  Free  common  schools  and  state 
asylums  for  the  insane  both  came  later. 

It  should  also  be  pointed  out  that  all  the  grants  to  charity  during 
this  period  were  only  slightly  controlled;  some  were  conditional,  while 
others  were  almost  in  the  nature  of  unrestricted  gifts.  In  the  case  of 
the  schools  for  defectives,  the  annual  grant  was  limited  in  amount  and 
the  appropriation  was  based  upon  the  quantity  (number  of  indigent 
children  received)  of  service  rendered  the  public.  Finally,  the  establish- 
ment of  these  subventions  cannot  be  regarded  as  the  result  of  a  definite 
policy  on  the  part  of  the  state.  Their  growth  was  more  or  less  acciden- 
tal, the  result  of  a  number  of  minor  influences,  and  not  the  product  of  a 
definite  plan  to  commit  the  state  either  to  the  continuance  or  to  the  en- 
largement of  its  appropriations. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

THE  ESTABLISHMENT  OF  THE  PERMANENT  ANNUAL  SUBVENTION  TO 

COMMON  SCHOOLS 

The  first  great  movement  for  free  schools  in  Pennsylvania  came  at 
the  time  of  the  Revolution.  The  influence  of  the  forces  then  at  work 
caused  the  legislature  to  pass  the  land-grant  act  of  1786  and  was  responsi- 
ble for  that  clause  in  the  state  constitution  of  1790  which  provided  for 
the  free  education  of  the  children  of  the  poor.  In  1792,  and  in  1794, 
legislative  committees  were  appointed  to  devise  means  for  a  more  wide- 
spread and  more  effective  school  system.  But  as  has  already  been 
pointed  out,  little  was  accomplished.  After  about  1795,  the  movement 
seemed  to  lose  force  and  the  only  important  results  accomplished  during 
the  next  twenty  years  were  the  pauper  school  law  of  1809  and  the  occa- 
sional subsidies  to  academies  and  colleges.48 

But  while  Pennsylvania  was  merely  marking  time,  neighboring  states 
had  established  elementary  schools,  which  were,  in  part  at  least,  "free" 
in  the  modern  sense  of  the  term.  Massachusetts  and  Connecticut  had 
permitted  local  taxation  for  the  support  of  education  as  early  as  the 
seventeenth  century,49  and  before  1800  these  two  states,  together  with 
New  York,  made  local  taxation  compulsory.50  But  the  two  New  Eng- 
land states  permitted  "rate  bills"  until  1827  and  1868  respectively.51 
Even  in  those  progressive  communities  there  seems  to  have  been  much 
hesitation  about  compelling  the  people  to  pay  taxes  for  the  support  of 
free  schools.  Furthermore,  over  the  country  as  a  whole  there  was  no 
settled  conviction  of  the  desirability  of  free  common  schools.  As  Pro- 
fessor Swift  has  pointed  out,  "  Public  sentiment  respecting  the  establish- 
ment and  maintenance  of  free  schools  ranged  all  the  way  from  indif- 
ference, disbelief,  and  contempt  to  open  hostility.  "52 

In  the  New  West  the  attitude  of  the  people  was  one  of  indifference 
in  spite  of  the  encouragement  for  the  establishment  of  schools  given 
by  the  federal  government  in  the  form  of  land  grants.  In  the  South 
free  schools  were  looked  upon  as  a  form  of  poor  relief,  and  the  stigma  of 
pauperism  attached  to  those  who  attended  them.53  In  Massachusetts 

48  For  an  explanation  of  the  failure  of  the  friends  of  education  to  secure  more 
significant  results  at  this  time,  see  Wickersham,  Ch.  XIII. 

49  Swift,  A  History  of  Public  Permanent  Common  School  Funds  in  the  United 
States,  1795-1905,  p.  29. 

80  Idem,  pp.  29-30. 

61  A  rate  bill  was  a  kind  of  fee  imposed  upon  the  parents  or  guardians  of  children 
for  the  purpose  of  defraying  the  cost  of  the  schools. 

52  Swift,  p.  161. 

53  Idem,  p.  162. 


56  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

the  presence  of  numerous  academies  and  private  schools  gave  evidence 
that  the  more  democratic  public  institution  was  not  regarded  as  wholly 
satisfactory  by  the  entire  community.  The  progress  of  public  education 
supported  by  taxation  was  everywhere  very  slow. 

One  of  the  first  steps  toward  the  establishment  of  free  schools  through- 
out the  country  was  the  provision  of  permanent  school  funds.  These 
funds  consisted,  as  a  rule,  of  a  capital  sum  derived  from  various  sources 
and  productively  invested,  the  annual  income  of  which  was  used  for 
the  support  of  education.  Permanent  common  school  funds  had  their 
origin  in  the  newer  states  in  the  lands  granted  by  Congress,  and  in  the 
older  states  in  a  variety  of  revenues  and  accidental  sources  of  income. 
The  policy  was  virtually  forced  upon  the  public  land  states,  but  by  1834 
a  majority  of  the  older  states  had  voluntarily  adopted  it.54 

Although  little  in  the  way  of  constructive  legislation  for  the  advance- 
ment of  free  schools  was  accomplished  in  Pennsylvania  during  the  first 
quarter  of  the  nineteenth  century,  it  would  be  a  mistake  to  suppose  that 
interest  in  the  subject  had  died  out  after  the  passage  of  the  pauper 
school  law  of  1809.  Agitation  outside  the  legislature  for  a  more  liberal 
policy  with  respect  to  public  schools  had  continued  in  a  desultory  fashion 
from  the  last  decade  of  the  eighteenth  century;  and  as  early  as  1810 
the  governor  suggested  legislation  of  a  more  liberal  character.  These 
recommendations,  which  were  couched  in  terms  sufficiently  vague  to 
permit  the  governor  to  advocate  almost  any  kind  of  system,  continued 
intermittently  down  to  1834.55 

In  1824  the  legislature  passed  a  law  "to  provide  more  effectually 
for  the  education  of  the  poor  gratis,  and  for  laying  the  foundation  of  a 
general  system  of  education  throughout  the  commonwealth."  Local 
school  boards  were  to  be  elected,  whose  duty  it  was  to  provide  and  to 
supervise  schools  for  the  poor.  Section  X  of  the  act  also  permitted  the 
citizens  of  the  several  townships,  wards,  and  boroughs  to  decide  by 
popular  vote  whether  or  not  they  would  tax  themselves  for  the  education 
of  all  children  between  the  ages  of  six  and  fourteen.  Adoption  of  taxation 
was  purely  optional,  and  there  was  no  attempt,  so  far  as  can  now  be 

64  Swift,  p.  96. 

65  These  gubernatorial  recommendations  must  not  be  taken  as  indicating  a  general 
public  demand  for  free  schools.    To  a  certain  extent  they  were  probably  of  a  political 
nature.     A  member  of  the  constitutional  convention  of  1837-38  in  commenting  on 
them  said:  "The  governor  never  had  failed  to  put  into  his  message  a  passage  recom- 
mending education.     At  last  it  came  to  be  regarded  in  the  same  light  as  the  religious 
allusions,  as  a  a  matter  of  ornament. "    Thus  Clarke  of  Indiana  County,  Proceedings 
&  Debates,  V,  p.  222. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  57 

ascertained,  to  coerce  any  community;  furthermore,  since  each  township, 
ward,  or  borough  could  decide  for  itself  there  was  no  possibility  of  the 
more  populous  and  poorer  sections  of  counties  and  cities  taxing  the  richer 
communities.  But  the  people  were  not  then  in  a  mood  to  accept  a  system 
that  carried  with  it  even  permissive  taxation;  and  the  law  "  .  .  .  met 
with  violent  oppositon,  was  repealed  in  1826  and  the  law  of  1809  re- 
stored. .  .  ')56 

This  law  of  1824  had  been  the  result  of  numerous  committee  reports 
and  petitions  to  the  legislature  asking  better  provision  for  the  education 
of  the  youth  of  the  state.  In  1822  a  committee  had  reported  at  length, 
condemning  alike  the  pauper  schools  established  under  the  act  of  1809 
and  the  policy  of  the  state  in  endowing  numerous  academies.57  In  1824 
Governor  Shulze  in  addressing  the  legislature  wrote,  "I  would  respect- 
fully suggest  whether  an  annual  sum,  specially  appropriated  for  that 
purpose  [the  endowment  of  educational  institutions]  would  not  in  a 
few  years  raise  a  fund  equal  to  the  universal  diffusion  of  the  elements 
of  education  among  the  children  of  the  republic.  "58  But  this  suggestion 
of  a  "fund"  did  not  apparently  meet  with  a  favorable  reception  at  the 
hands  of  the  lawmakers,  and  no  action  was  taken.  Various  voluntary 
organizations  had,  meanwhile,  been  agitating  a  more  liberal  provision 
for  education  at  state  expense.59 

In  1830  Governor  Wolf  suggested  that  the  various  counties  be  per- 
mitted to  establish  local  permanent  funds  for  the  endowment  of  public 
elementary  schools.  He  believed  that  a  plan  which  should  provide  for 
the  levy  of  a  small  additional  county  rate,  the  proceeds  of  which  might 
be  invested  in  the  internal  improvement  stock  of  the  state,  would  in  a 
short  time  produce  an  annual  revenue  large  enough  to  aid  materially 
in  establishing  public  schools.60  But  the  legislature  did  not  at  that  time 
act  favorably  upon  the  plan.  The  scheme  was,  nevertheless,  very 
suggestive,  combining  as  it  did  the  permanent  fund,  which  would  obviate 
the  necessity  of  heavy  direct  taxation,  with  a  scheme  for  securing  money 
for  the  construction  of  the  canals. 

58  Wickersham,  p.  270.     His  statement  is  inexact,  for  the  law  of  1824  did  not 
repeal  the  act  of  1809;  it  merely  superseded  it  in  certain  respects  in  those  cases  where 
the  local  unit  chose  to  put  the  law  of  1824  into  effect. 

57  Wickersham  notes  several  other  committee  reports  from  1822  to  1831,  pp.  274- 
275. 

68  Pennsylvania  Archives,  IV,  Ser.  V,  p.  550. 

59  Mathew  Carey  was  of  the  opinion  that  these  societies  accomplished  very  little. 
See  his  Public  Charities  of  Philadelphia,  p.  33. 

60  Pennsylvania  Archives,  IV  Ser.  V,  p.  885. 


58  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

In  the  following  year  (1831)  the  legislature  established  the  "school 
fund.  "61  Section  I  of  the  act  provided  that  all  receipts  from  the  land 
office,  including  land  sales  and  fees,  and  all  revenues  accruing  from  the 
Act  of  March  25th,  of  the  same  year,  which  had  increased  the  county 
rates  and  levies  for  the  benefit  of  the  state,  should  be  set  apart  as  a  com- 
mon-school fund.  Section  III  required  that  all  revenues  accruing  to  the 
fund  should  be  invested  at  5  per  cent  compound  interest  until  the  princi- 
pal of  the  fund  was  large  enough  to  yield  $100,000  annually,  when,  pre- 
sumable, the  annual  income  was  to  be  used  for  the  support  of  elementary 
education.  In  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  other  acts,  the  fund 
was  to  be  invested  in  the  internal  improvement  stock  of  the  state.62  In 
securing  this  legislation  the  advocates  of  better  schools  had  cleverly 
taken  advantage  of  the  popularity  of  the  internal  improvement  policy. 
Ostensibly  the  revenue  that  would  accrue  for  the  benefit  of  schools 
would  not  come  out  of  the  pockets  of  the  taxpayers. 

One  of  the  strongest  motives  for  the  establishment  of  permanent 
school  funds  in  all  the  states  that  provided  such  endowments  was  the 
desire  to  avoid  heavy  direct  taxes,63  and  it  was  in  the  belief  that  the 
state  could  thus  encourage  education  without  taxing  the  people  that 
the  fund  was  established  in  Pennsylvania. 

As  a  book  account,  the  fund  continued  to  grow  during  the  following 
years,  and  even  as  early  as  1833  Governor  Wolf  ventured  to  predict  that, 
judging  from  the  flattering  indications  already  given  by  the  public 
works,  there  was  "reason  to  believe  that,  from  the  redundant  and  pro- 
gressively increasing  revenue  which  may  [might]  with  great  certainty 
be  expected  to  flow  into  the  treasury  from  that  source  [the  works]  much 
aid  may  [might]  at  no  distant  day,  be  derived"  for  the  support  of  educa- 
tional institutions.64 

The  history  of  the  Pennsylvania  school  fund  is  difficult  to  trace. 
After  1836  it  received  additions  from  the  bonus  paid  by  the  Bank  of 
the  United  States  and  from  similar  sources,65  and  it  was  expected  that 
by  1843  the  annual  interest  on  the  fund  would  amount  to  $100,000.66 
When  the  common  schools  were  established  in  1834,  $75,000  was  appro- 
priated from  the  fund  for  their  support  until  the  annual  income  from  the 

61  Act  2  April,  1831,  P.L.  pp.  385-386. 
«2  Act  22  April,  1829,  P.L.  p.  254. 

63  Swift,  p.  165. 

64  Pennsylvania  Archives,  IV  Ser.  VI,  p.  125. 

65  Supt.  of  Common  Schools,  Report  (1844),  p.  11. 

66  Pennsylvania  Archives,  IV  Ser.  VI  p.  127. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  59 

fund  should  amount  to  $100,000.  In  subsequent  appropriation  acts, 
however,  the  legislature  seems  to  have  paid  very  little  attention  to  the 
amount  actually  to  be  derived  from  that  source.  And  it  is  probable 
that  by  1837,  when  $500,000  of  the  state's  share  in  the  surplus  revenue 
of  the  federal  government  was  appropriated  for  the  assistance  of  the 
school  districts,  the  fund  idea  was  no  longer  important.  Finally,  in  1841, 
the  fund  was  practically  abolished  by  merging  the  income  that  should 
accrue  from  it,  in  excess  of  a  specific  sum  appropriated  for  the  schools 
by  the  legislature,  with  the  general  receipts  of  the  state  treasury.67  Thus 
the  law  of  1831  was  practically  repealed.  In  1849  the  state  Superinten- 
dent wrote,  "  Pennsylvania  has  no  fund  for  school  purposes.  "68 

But  before  the  repeal  of  the  act  creating  the  fund  the  common 
school  system  had  been  established  and  a  revenue  provided  for  its  sup- 
port. In  1834  the  legislature  passed  an  act  which  provided  for  a  "gen- 
eral system  of  education  by  common  schools."69  This  act  was  clearly 
intended  to  supersede  the  pauper  school  law  of  1809,  but  since  there 
was  much  opposition  the  latter  law  was  not  repealed.  By  highly  com- 
plicated arrangements  each  county  and  each  school  district  was  per- 
mitted to  decide  whether  it  would  come  under  the  new  law  and  establish 
free  education  for  all  children,  or  whether  it  would  continue  to  provide 
schools  only  for  the  poor.70 

But  the  state  did  more  than  establish  a  permissive  system.  In  order 
to  induce  localities  to  accept  the  new  plan,  $75,000  was  appropriated 

«7  Act  4  May,  1841,  P.L.  p.  312. 

68  Report  (1849),  p.  12. 

69  Act  1  April,  1834,  P.L.  pp.  170  ff. 

70  Each  township,  each  borough,  and  each  ward  of  a  city  was  created  a  school  dis- 
trict, and  in  each  district,  at  the  next  general  election  following  the  passage  of  the  act, 
the  people  were  required  to  elect  school  directors,  who  in  turn  were  required  to  select 
one  of  their  number  as  a  delegate  to  a  county  convention  that  was  to  decide  whether 
the  county  as  a  political  unit  would  levy  taxes  for  the  support  of  free  common  schools. 
This  convention  was  composed  of  the  delegates  elected  by  the  directors  of  the  various 
districts  within  the  county  and  the  county  commissioners.     If  the  convention  "ac- 
cepted" the  new  system,  it  was  required  to  levy  a  county  tax  for  the  support  of  schools; 
and  in  that  case  the  people — not  the  directors — of  the  various  districts  might  levy 
additional  taxes  if  a  majority  of  the  voters  consented  to  such  a  policy.     On  the  other 
hand  if  the  county  convention  decided  not  to  levy  any  tax  for  the  support  of  schools, 
and  thus  rejected  the  new  plan,  the  people  of  the  several  districts  were  permitted  to 
put  the  scheme  into  operation  in  spite  of  the  action  of  the  larger  unit.     It  should  be 
borne  in  mind  in  this  connection  that  the  term  "district"  is  generally  used  in  the  Penn- 
sylvania laws  and  reports  to  mean  a  township,  ward,  or  borough,  and  not  the  com- 
munity immediately  surrounding,  and  tributary  to,  a  particular  school  or  schoolhouse. 


60  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

from  the  school  fund  in  aid  of  the  local  districts.  This  amount  was  to 
be  distributed  among  the  several  counties  of  the  state  in  proportion  to 
the  number  of  taxable  inhabitants  in  each.  The  financial  officers  of 
the  county  were  then  required  to  redistribute  the  amount  received  from 
the  state,  together  with  the  proceeds  of  such  school  taxes  as  had  been 
levied  by  the  county,  among  the  districts  in  accordance  with  the  number 
of  taxable  inhabitants  in  each  district.  This  was  the  normal  procedure 
in  the  accepting  county.  Any  district  within  an  accepting  county 
that  refused  to  put  the  scheme  into  operation  received  no  state 
aid  and  the  amount  of  the  state  subvention  that  would  have 
fallen  to  it  went  to  the  other  districts.  In  a  non-accepting  county 
the  accepting  districts  received  the  entire  amount  of  the  state  subvention 
to  which  the  county  as  a  whole  was  entitled.  The  effect  of  this  pro- 
vision in  case  only  one  district  within  a  populous  county  decided  to  ac- 
cept the  new  plan  is  obvious.  Furthermore,  non-accepting  counties 
were  required  to  provide  for  the  poor  under  the  pauper  school  law  of 
1809,  and  the  accepting  districts  within  the  county  received  such  a 
proportion  of  the  revenue  from  taxes  levied  for  that  purpose  as  they  would 
have  received  had  they  not  accepted  the  newer  scheme.  The  law  offered 
in  these  two  ways  a  very  liberal  inducement  to  accepting  districts  within 
non-accepting  counties  to  set  a  better  example  before  their  neighbors. 

Nor  were  these  the  only  inducements  offered.  In  order  that  a  county 
might  receive  state  aid,  it  was  required  to  raise  by  taxation  an  amount 
at  least  three  times  as  great  as  its  proportion  of  the  state  subvention; 
but  the  accepting  district  within  the  non-accepting  county  was  required 
to  raise  an  amount  no  larger  than  if  the  county  had  accepted  as  a  unit. 
Thus  it  was  possible  for  the  state  subvention  to  such  a  district  to  exceed 
the  local  tax  several  times  over.  The  intervention  of  the  county,  both 
as  a  unit  for  distribution  of  the  state  subvention  and  for  voting  on  the 
acceptance  of  the  system  was  one  of  the  parts  of  the  scheme  that  had 
to  be  discarded  two  years  later.  By  the  Act  of  1836,  which  completely 
superseded  the  Act  of  1834,  the  districts  accepted  or  rejected  the  sytem 

A  district,  in  Pennsylvania,  usually  contained  several  schoolhouses.  It  is  difficult 
to  understand  why  the  county  convention  was  included  in  the  machinery  of  the  new 
system.  The  commissioners,  who  were  elected  from  the  townships  to  administer 
the  various  services  of  the  county,  were,  it  is  true,  the  principal  local  taxing  authority 
outside  of  the  cities  and  boroughs,  and  it  might  have  been  on  this  account  that  they 
were  included.  But  the  convention  without  their  presence  would  have  been  an  un- 
necessary encumbrance,  since  districts  were  not  bound  by  its  action. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  61 

as  individuals,  and  the  failure  of  a  majority  of  the  districts  within  a 
county  to  accept  did  not  affect  either  the  tax  requirement  (for  the  dis- 
tricts) or  the  quota  of  state  aid  for  the  minority. 

By  another  clumsy  and  complex  provision  of  the  law  of  1834,  the 
local  administration  of  the  schools  was  divided  among  three  bodies.71 
The  state  administration  was  closely  centralized,  on  the  other  hand, 
in  the  Secretary  of  the  Commonwealth  who  was  made  State  Superin- 
tendent of  Common  Schools.  The  duties  of  the  new  office,  which  were 
added  to  those  he  already  carried,  consisted  chiefly  in  apportioning  the 
state  subvention  to  the  various  counties,  in  receiving  reports  from  the 
local  officers,  in  preparing  a  condensed  report  for  the  legislature,  and  in 
deciding  disputes  concerning  doubtful  points  in  the  school  law. 

He  was  chiefly  a  ministerial  officer  and  had  no  discretionary  power 
with  respect  either  to  paying  or  withholding  the  subvention  or  with 
respect  to  local  administration.  He  could  not  coerce  or  remove  a  single 
local  officer;  nor  could  he  refuse  to  pay  to  the  localities  the  subvention, 
if  the  minimum  tax  had  been  levied  and  proper  reports  submitted. 

The  act  of  1834  was  passed  without  much  opposition,  probably  be- 
cause inadequate  means  of  communication  prevented  those  who  were 
later  to  become  so  bitterly  opposed  to  its  operation  from  learning  de- 
finitely of  its  provisions  in  time  to  bring  pressure  to  bear  upon  the  mem- 
bers of  the  General  Assembly.  But  in  the  next  session  a  determined 

71  The  directors  elected  by  the  people  were  chargeable  with  locating  schools,  build- 
ing schoolhouses,  employing  teachers,  admitting  pupils,  selecting  books  and  equipment, 
and  with  visitation  of  the  schools  in  their  charge.  The  township  supervisor  in  the 
townships,  and  the  town  councils  in  the  boroughs  were  alone  capable  of  consenting 
to  the  sale  or  purchase  of  property  used  in  conducting  the  schools.  The  third  official 
group  was  two  inspectors,  appointed  for  each  district  by  the  court  of  quarter  sessions, 
who  were  required  to  examine  teachers  and  grant  certificates,  to  visit  and  inspect  the 
schools,  and  to  report  to  the  state  superintendent  of  common  schools  concerning  the 
progress  of  scholars,  the  number  and  the  qualifications  of  the  teachers  employed, 
the  number  of  scholars  taught,  the  length  of  the  school  term,  the  cost  of  buildings,  the 
financial  receipts  from  all  sources,  and  the  expenditures  classified  by  purpose.  It  seems 
to  have  been  supposed  that  the  appointees  to  this  office  would  be  the  best  educated 
men  in  the  community,  and  owing  to  the  source  of  their  appointment,  independent 
of  the  local  prejudices  that  might  be  expected  to  influence  the  elected  directors.  Un- 
fortunately the  law  neglected  to  provide  for  payment  for  the  performance  of  the  many 
duties  placed  upon  the  inspectors,  and,  consequently,  the  provision  concerning  them 
was  a  dead  letter  (Wickersham,  p.  322).  In  the  act  of  1836,  they  were  dropped,  their 
duties  being  transferred  to  the  directors. 


62  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

attack  was  made  upon  the  new  system.72  After  the  failure  of  this  at- 
tempt to  repeal  the  law  the  legislature  turned  its  attention  to  perfecting 
the  system. 

The  intervention  of  the  county  convention  was  abolished  in  1836, 
and  the  districts  were  given  the  right  to  decide  directly  upon  the  accept- 
ance of  the  system  and  the  levy  of  taxes.73  The  sections  of  the  law  that 
dealt  with  local  taxation  were  altered  in  important  particulars.  Dis- 
tricts (instead  of  counties)  were  now  required  to  levy  only  as  great  a 
tax  as  their  share  of  the  state  subvention  in  1836,74  and  the  maximum 
local  levy  by  the  directors  was  limited  to  double  the  share  of  the  district 
in  the  state  appropriation.75  The  conditions  prerequisite  for  receiving 
state  aid  were  the  same  as  under  the  law  of  1834,  but  the  failure  of  many 
districts  to  furnish  the  state  superintendent  with  reports  on  the  condi- 
tions obtaining  in  their  schools  caused  the  legislature  in  1842  to  add  that 
no  district  should  be  paid  until  it  had  submitted  the  reports  required 
by  law.76  There  was  no  material  change  in  the  powers  and  duties  of 
the  state  superintendent,  and  that  officer  continued  to  perform  purely 
ministerial  duties. 

As  was  the  case  with  the  subsidies  for  charity,  the  subvention  for  com- 
mon schools  varied  in  amount  according  to  the  prosperity  of  the  state 
treasury.  Table  I  shows  a  marked  increase  in  the  amount  of  the  sub- 
vention after  1836.  The  augmentation  of  the  grant  could  not,  of  course, 
have  come  from  the  growing  revenue  of  the  school  fund  of  1831,  since 
the  revenue  from  land  sales  declined  after  1835.  The  large  grants  to 
common  schools  during  the  years  1838  to  1840  were  due  to  sudden 
accessions  to  the  state  treasury  of  incidental  revenue  in  extraordinary 
amounts. 

72  On  the  fight  which  was  made  in  that  session  to  repeal  the  law  of  1834  and  to 
destroy  the  system  before  it  could  become  firmly  rooted,   and  for  an  excellent  ac- 
count of  the  proceedings  of  the  legislature  and  an  explanation  of  the  determined  opp- 
osition to  the  system,  see  Wickersham,  ch.  xvi. 

73  Act  13  June,  1836,  P.L.  pp.  525  ff . 

74  It  was  afterwards  decided  by  the  state  superintendent  that  the  wording  of 
the  law  made  the  requirement  in  this  respect  permanent.     No  matter  how  large  or 
how  small  was  the  state  subvention  in  subsequent  years,  the  accepting  district  was 
obliged  to  levy  a  tax  equal  only  to  its  share  of  the  subvention  of  1836.    The  provision 
that  made  this  absurd  situation  possible  is  Sec.  10,  Par.  Ill,  P.L.  p.  529.     See  also 
Superintendent  of  Common  Schools,  Report  (1844),  pp.  12-13. 

71  The  districts  could  by  a  popular  vote  increase  this  amount  as  in  1834. 
7«  Act  18  March,  1842,  P.L.  p.  124. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  63 

In  1836  the  state  chartered  the  Bank  of  the  United  States,  providing 
that  in  addition  to  the  other  payments  to  the  state  treasury  "  the  further 
sum  of  one  hundred  thousand  dollars  on  the  first  day  of  June  next,  and 
like  sums  of  one  hundred  thousand  dollars,  on  each  succeeding  first  Mon- 
day of  June,  for  nineteen  years  thereafter,  to  [shall]  be  added  to  and  paid 
over  with  the  annual  appropriation  provided  by  the  Commonwealth 
for  school  purposes  and  be  distributed  according  to  the  several  laws  of 
the  Commonwealth  regulating  the  distribution  of  such  appropriations.  "77 
That  the  bank  bonus,  or  a  part  of  it,  should  thus  be  used  for  the  benefit 
of  the  schools  was  quite  in  harmony  with  the  policy  of  other  states  of 
providing  for  free  education  out  of  non-tax  income. 

In  the  following  year  (1837),  the  schools  received  additional  aid  from 
other  incidental  sources.  The  legislature  decided  that  the  surplus  reve- 
nue, which  the  federal  government  turned  over  to  Pennsylvania,  should 
be  deposited  with  banks  at  6  per  cent  interest,  and  the  proceeds  devoted  to 
the  schools.78  The  interest  on  this  deposit  would  have  meant  an  annual 
accretion  of  more  than  $170,000  had  it  been  permitted  to  remain  invested 
for  the  benefit  of  education;  but  the  legislature  soon  appropriated  the 
principal  and  thus  wiped  out  that  source  of  school  income.  But,  as 
it  happened,  the  schools  received  a  liberal  share  of  the  surplus  in  a 
different  way.  A  most  serious  difficulty  encountered  during  the  first 
years  of  the  school  system  had  been  the  lack  of  schoolhouses.  In  some 
localities  the  districts  had  been  able  to  utilize  buildings  previously  con- 
structed for  the  education  of  pauper  children.  In  other  instances  they 
were  able  to  rent  or  to  purchase  the  buildings  that  had  been  used  for 
parochial  or  private  schools.  But  in  a  majority  of  cases  the  districts 
were  obliged  to  construct  buildings  before  they  could  put  the  schools 
into  operation.  Since  the  terms  of  the  subvention  did  not  require 
the  districts  receiving  the  grant  to  maintain  schools  for  any  specified 
length  of  time,  it  was  possible  to  expend  the  state  money,  as  well  as 
the  proceeds  of  local  taxation,  in  the  construction  of  buildings.  But 
this  meant  that  while  the  district  was  paying  for  buildings  it  would  be 
obliged  to  economize  severely  in  other  directions.  Hence,  for  the  first 
few  years  the  school  system  was  a  "system  of  taxation"  and  not  of  edu- 
cation.79 

The  effect  of  this  situation  upon  the  acceptance  of  the  common 
schools  was  anything  but  favorable,  and  in  1836  Governor  Ritner  recom- 

"  Act  18  February,  1836,  P.L.  pp.  42-43. 
79  Act  27  February,  1837,  P.L.  pp.  24-25. 
79  Superintendent  of  Common  Schools,  Report  (1838),  p.  9. 


64  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

mended  that  $500,000  of  the  surplus  revenue  deposited  by  the  federal 
government  be  appropriated  to  the  districts  for  the  erection  of  school- 
houses.80  That  the  burden  of  building  houses  was  a  relatively  large 
item  in  the  expenses  of  the  schools  during  the  first  few  years  is  shown  by 
the  fact  that  in  the  districts  outside  of  Philadelphia,  from  1836  to  1842 
inclusive,  almost  one-third  as  much  was  paid  for  building  purposes  as 
for  instruction,  fuel  and  other  maintenance  costs.81 

In  order  to  relieve  the  localities  of  a  part  of  the  cost  of  construction 
and  to  hasten  the  time  when  the  schools  should  be  fully  in  operation, 
the  legislature  followed  the  recommendation  of  the  governor  and  appro- 
priated for  the  construction  of  schoolhouses  $500,000  of  the  surplus 
revenue,  In  case  any  district  already  had  a  suitable  building,  it  was 
permitted  to  utilize  its  share  of  the  grant,  which  was  distributed  in  the 
usual  way,  for  the  maintenance  of  schools.82 

The  amount  actually  paid  to  all  accepting  districts83  during  the  year 
1837  was  $553,300,^  the  highwater  mark  of  the  subvention  for  more 
than  thirty  years.  The  circumstances  surrounding  this  grant  of  a  round 
half-million  of  dollars  for  the  building  of  schoolhouses  support  the  gen- 
eral principle  that  a  treasury  suddenly  become  prosperous  by  reason 
of  unusual  productiveness  of  the  taxes  or  by  reason  of  the  unexpected 
appearance  of  large  incidental  revenues,  supplies  a  very  favorable  oppor- 
tunity for  the  establishment  of  new  grants  or  the  extension  of  old  ones. 

In  1838  the  legislature,  seeking  to  provide  permanently  for  the 
school  system,  enacted  that  the  amount  of  the  state  subvention  should, 
in  the  future,  be  one  dollar  for  each  taxable  inhabitant  within  the  several 

80  Pennsylvania  Archives,  IV  Ser.  VI,  p.  295. 

81  See  table,  page  65  infra. 

*2  Act  3  April,  1837,  P.L.  p.  405.  How  large  a  proportion  of  the  money  thus 
appropriated  was  actually  used  in  building  is  not  indicated  by  the  table  on  page  65, 
and  the  inadequacy  of  the  reports  of  the  time  make  anything  but  a  conjectural  esti- 
mate impossible.  It  is  significant,  however,  to  note  that  in  the  year  when  the  special 
grant  of  $500,000  was  made,  the  average  length  of  the  school  term,  as  given  by  the 
reports  of  the  state  superintendent,  increased  from  four  months  and  three  days  to 
six  months,  (Report  (1844),  p.  8)  and  at  no  time  afterwards  did  so  short  an  average 
term  as  five  months  prevail. 

83  The  wide  variations  between  the  amounts  appropriated  and  the  amounts  actual- 
ly paid  over,  as  reported  by  the  Auditor  General,  are  principally  due  to  the  presence 
of  the  non-accepting  districts,  whose  share  remained  in  the  state  treasury. 

84  This  included,  in  addition  to  the  proportion  of  the  $500,000  for  building  pur- 
poses paid  to  accepting  districts,  the  annual  subvention  for  the  maintenance  of  the 
schools. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 


65 


districts.85  This  act  was,  of  course,  not  binding  upon  subsequent  legis- 
latures and  very  little  attention  seems  to  have  been  paid  to  it  in  the 
following  sessions.  The  effect  of  the  law,  had  it  been  observed,  would 
have  been  to  cause  the  subvention  to  increase  automatically  with  every 
triennial  enumeration  of  taxables,  and  in  this  way,  assuming  that  the 
amount  of  one  dollar  per  taxable  was  adequate,  the  increase  of  the 
grant  would  have  kept  pace  with  the  needs  of  the  system.  In  this  con- 
nection it  should  be  noted  that  the  legislature,  in  providing  for  the  one- 
dollar-per-taxable  subvention,  did  not  alter  that  provision  of  the  law 
of  1836  which  fixed  the  minimum  tax  requirement  for  the  districts 
receiving  the  subvention  at  an  amount  equal  to  the  quota  due  each 
district  from  the  subvention  of  that  year.  It  would  thus  have  been 
possible,  had  the  law  of  1838  been  observed,  for  the  districts  to  continue 
to  draw  triennially  a  larger  state  subsidy  and  yet  to  levy  the  same  local 
tax.  It  can  hardly  be  supposed,  however,  that  this  failure  to  repeal 
the  provision  of  the  earlier  law  was  the  result  of  neglect  or  an  oversight; 
for  it  was  only  after  repeated  urging  from  the  state  superintendent 
during  several  years  that  the  repeal  was  actually  accomplished. 

THE  FINANCES  OF  THE  PUBLIC  COMMON  SCHOOLS  OF  PENNSYLVANIA 

OUTSIDE  OF  PHILADELPHIA,  1836  to  1844 

(in  thousands  of  dollars)* 


Year 

State  Subvention 

Local  Tax  Levied 

Expenditure 
for  Buildings 

Expenditure 
for  Instruction 
and  Incidentals 

1836 

98.7 

207.1 

111.8 

194.0 

1837 

463.7 

231.5 

"202.2 

493.1 

1838 

.      323.8 

385.8 

149.1 

560.4 

1839 

276.8 

382.5 

161.4 

579.2 

1840 

264.5 

395.9 

161.4 

580.3 

1841 

249.4 

397.9 

123.0 

524.3 

1842 

250.1 

398.8 

119.0 

489.9 

1843 

272.7 

419.3 

92.7 

484.4 

1844 

264.5 

391.3 

75.9 

470.2 

*  These  data  are  from  the  Report  of  the  Superintendent  of  Common  Schools  for 
1855,  p.  346.  The  reports  of  the  superintendent  did  not  at  this  time  contain  complete 
data  for  the  Philadelphia  schools,  since  they  were  not  required  to  report  to  him.  In- 
quiry at  the  office  of  the  State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction  and  at  the  offices 
of  the  school  authorities  in  Philadelphia  failed  to  discover  the  financial  statements  of 
the  Philadelphia  schools  for  this  period. 


85  Act  12  April,  1838,  P.L.  pp.  332-333. 


66  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

In  later  appropriations  the  rule  of  one  dollar  for  each  taxable  was 
not  followed.  In  1841,  $330,000  was  granted,86  but  in  the  following 
year  the  appropriation  was  measurably  reduced.87  In  1843  it  was  again 
raised  to  $250,00088  and  then  reduced  again  to  $200,000  in  1844.89 

In  the  disastrous  year  of  1843  attempts  were  made  to  curtail  state 
expenditure  wherever  such  a  course  was  possible.  The  salaries  of  state 
officers  were  reduced,  and  the  less  necessary  items  of  expense  were 
dropped  from  departmental  budgets.90  It  was  but  natural  that  at  such 
a  time  there  should  be  some  questioning  of  the  subvention  to  common 
schools,  and  it  was  proposed  to  suspend  the  payment  of  the  subvention 
for  a  period  of  years  until  the  finances  of  the  state  were  in  a  more  secure 
position.91  In  support  of  this  plan  it  was  argued  that,  while  the  grant 
might  have  been  justified  when  the  finances  of  the  state  were  prosperous, 
it  should  not  be  continued  at  a  time  when  heavy  taxes  and  the  severest 
economy  were  necessary  for  the  payment  of  interest  on  the  public  debt. 
It  was  asserted  that  it  was  inequitable  to  permit  certain  counties  to  draw 
from  the  state  treasury  an  amount  equal  to,  or  in  excess  of  their  contribu- 
tion to  state  expenses;  that  the  payment  of  the  debt  was  the  first  obliga- 
tion of  the  state,  and  that  all  expenditures  that  stood  in  the  way  of  its 
fulfillment  should  be  eliminated.92 

The  state  superintendent  met  these  and  other  similar  arguments  for 
withholding  the  subvention  with  the  simple  statement  that  a  withdrawal 
of  state  aid  at  that  time  might  easily  cause  the  abandonment  of  the  free 
common  schools  started  at  so  great  an  expense  to  both  the  state  and  the 
localities.93  The  outcome  of  the  demand  for  economy  was  the  reduction 
of  the  appropriation  to  $200,000,  an  amount  about  equal  to  50  cents 
per  taxable. 

What  would  have  been  the  effect  upon  the  school  system  had  the 
grant  been  withheld  at  this  time,  can  be  best  determined  by  a  comparison 
of  the  relative  shares  contributed  by  the  state  and  by  the  localities. 
From  the  table  on  page  65,  it  appears  that  in  1837,  outside  of  Philadel- 
phia, the  state  paid  about  twice  as  much  for  the  support  of  the  common 

88  Sec.  14,  Act 4  March,  1841,  P.L.  p.  312. 

87  Jt.  Res.  of  4  April,  1842 ,  P.L.  p.  485. 

88  Sec.  1,  Act  29  September,  1843,  P.L.  of  1844,  p.  6. 

89  Sec.  1,  Act  31  May,  1844,  P.L.  p.  583. 

90  Act  4  April,  1843,  P.L.  p.  324. 

91  Superintendent  of  Common  Schools,  Report  (1844),  p.  16. 

92  For  example  "A  Letter  to  the  Pennsylvania  Legislature  on  the  subject  of  the 
state  debt,  by  Publius, "  a  pamphlet  published  in  1844. 

93  Report  (1844),  p.  6. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  67 

schools  as  did  the  districts.  In  1840  the  subvention  was  slightly  more 
than  two-thirds  as  large  as  the  levy  of  taxes  by  the  districts,  and  in  1844 
it  was  again  slightly  in  excess  of  two-thirds  of  the  local  levy.  In  Philadel- 
phia, where  taxation  for  the  support  of  public  schools  had  been  in  opera- 
tion for  a  much  longer  time  than  in  the  rural  counties,  the  state  subvention 
was,  in  1840,  about  28  per  cent  of  the  amount  contributed  by  the  county.94 
For  the  districts  outside  of  that  city,  therefore,  the  withdrawal  of  state 
aid  would  have  been,  in  1844,  a  great  hardship,  and  would  almost  cer- 
tainly have  caused  the  law  to  become  inoperative  in  many  localities. 

Whether  or  not  the  localities  were  at  this  time  so  heavily  burdened 
with  other  taxes  as  to  have  been  unable  to  make  up  the  $200,000  which 
a  loss  of  the  subvention  would  have  required,  or  whether  their  failure 
to  levy  larger  taxes  was  simply  a  result  of  indifference  or  hostility  to  the 
system,  cannot  be  determined.  It  is  certain,  however,  that  at  this 
time,  even  with  the  assistance  of  the  state,  local  taxation  was  insufficient 
adequately  to  maintain  the  common  schools.  The  proof  of  this  state- 
ment is  to  be  found,  in  part,  in  the  assertions  of  the  various  state  officers 
(already  cited),  that  the  one  great  need  of  the  system  was  a  larger  state 
subvention.95  In  the  second  place  this  opinion  is  borne  out  by  the  fact 
that  many  districts  were  compelled  to  resort  to  voluntary  subscriptions 
to  extend  the  short  terms  that  the  public  schools  provided.96 

Further  evidence  of  the  inadequacy  of  taxes  plus  the  reduced  state 
aid  to  provide  proper  schools,  is  found  in  the  introduction  of  "  rate- 
bills,"  which  permitted  the  directors  to  impose  a  fee  charge  of  not  more 
than  one  dollar  for  each  child  attending  school,  to  be  paid  by  the  parent, 
guardian,  or  master  of  the  child.97  This  method  of  supporting  the 
schools,  partly  by  taxation  and  partly  by  a  fee  payment,  stands  halfway 
between  voluntary  contributions  and  taxation  for  the  entire  support  of 

94  Superintendent  of  Common  Schools,  Report  (1841),  p.  12. 

95  See  also  Superintendent  of  Common  Schools,  Report  (1838),  p.  19. 
96/</ew(1844),p.6. 

"See  Sec.  13,  Act  29  March,  1842,  P.L.  pp.  211-212,  which  permitted  all  the 
districts  in  Delaware  County  and  one  district  in  Franklin  County  to  make  use  of  these 
fee  charges.  For  other  special  acts  permitting  rate-bills,  see  Act  18  March,  1844, 
P.L.p.  139;  Act  23  April,  1844,  P.L.  pp.  347-349;  Act  7  May,  1844,  P.L.  p. 571.  Wick- 
ersham  asserts  (p.  360)  that  the  state  superintendent  strongly  recommended  this 
policy  in  his  annual  report  of  1842;  in  another  place,  (p.  343),  he  writes,  "Rate-bills, 
so  common  in  the  public  schools  of  our  older  states,  and  abroad,  never  had  an  existence 
in  Pennsylvania"!  Swift,  p.  26,  has  taken  Wickersham  to  task  for  this  statement 
on  other  grounds,  but  has  not  pointed  out  the  fact  that  these  fee  charges,  of  which 
Wickersham  boasts  the  absence,  were  actually  authorized. 


68  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

education.  Its  introduction  at  this  time,  when  the  subvention  was 
declining  in  amount,  shows  that  in  many  districts  public  sentiment  was 
not  strongly  enough  in  favor  of  the  schools  to  permit  levying  the  taxes 
necessary  for  their  adequate  support.  Consideration  of  the  growth  of 
public  indifference  to  the  school  system,  which  marked  the  years  1844 
to  1854,  must  be  deferred  to  the  next  chapter. 

The  principal  characteristics  of  this  subvention  are  of  sufficient 
importance  to  deserve  a  summary  at  this  point.  In  passing  the  law  of 
1834  the  legislature  made  a  new  departure  from  its  previous  policy  in 
making  subsidies  to  academies  and  colleges  and  to  local  governments  for 
various  purposes.  These  had,  without  exception,  been  either  occasional 
lump-sum  grants  or  subventions  for  a  limited  period  of  years.  The 
common  school  grant,  on  the  other  hand,  has  from  the  first  been  a  per- 
manent subvention ;  that  is,  it  was  permanent  in  the  sense  that  the  appro- 
priations were  regarded  as  regularly  recurring  state  expenses,  although 
until  the  constitution  of  1873  fixed  the  policy  in  the  fundamental  law 
of  the  state,  it  would  have  been  within  the  power  of  the  General  Assembly 
to  do  away  with  the  entire  system,  or  to  refuse  to  make  the  annual  or 
biennial  appropriation. 

In  the  second  place,  the  school  subvention  was  a  conditional  grant. 
Any  district  that  failed  to  levy  a  tax  for  the  support  of  its  schools  was 
not  permitted  to  receive  a  share  of  the  state  money,  and  the  amount  of 
the  minimum  tax  necessary  to  secure  that  money  was  definitely  fixed 
by  law.  The  obvious  purpose  of  this  provision  was  to  require  the  dis- 
tricts that  participated  in  state  aid  to  do  something  in  their  own  behalf; 
the  subvention  was  used,  therefore,  to  stimulate  local  taxation  for  school 
purposes. 

A  third  characteristic  of  the  subvention  was  the  almost  complete 
absence  of  central  supervision  of  the  service  aided.  With  regard  to 
earlier  occasional  grants  to  colleges  and  academies,  and  in  the  case  of  the 
grants  to  counties  and  townships  for  roads  and  bridges,  the  same  lack 
of  state  control  was  also  present.  After  the  act  of  1842,  it  is  true,  no 
district  could  draw  its  quota  of  state  money  until  it  had  made  certain 
reports  to  the  state  superintendent.  But  only  in  this  respect  did  the 
state  place  the  upon  the  localities  any  requirement  looking  toward  cen- 
tralization. These  reports  were  necessary  if  the  state  was  to  be  sure, 
before  it  paid  the  subvention,  that  the  locality  had  complied  with  the 
requirement  for  a  minimum  of  local  taxation.  But  many  important 
matters,  such  as  the  qualifications  of  teachers,  the  wages  of  teachers, 
the  length  of  the  school  term,  the  school  curriculum,  and  sanitation, 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  69 

which  are  now  all  more  or  less  definitely  regulated  by  the  state,  were 
left  in  the  hands  of  the  local  directors.  The  auditing  of  the  accounts  of 
the  school  officers,  and  the  verification  of  the  accounts  submitted  in  the 
reports  to  the  state  superintendent  were  also  attended  to  by  local  officers. 
It  needs  no  further  evidence  than  the  facts  just  cited  to  show  that  the 
purpose  of  the  state  in  making  the  subvention  was  not  to  control  the  local 
administration  of  schools,  either  for  the  purpose  of  regulating  the  con- 
duct of  those  schools  or  for  the  purpose  of  inspecting  their  finances.  The 
explanation  of  the  motives  which  impelled  the  General  Assembly  to 
introduce  the  subvention,  must  be  sought  in  other  directions. 

Moreover,  the  laws  of  1834  and  1836  do  not  seem  to  have  been  drafted 
with  especial  reference  to  the  problem  of  tax  equalization  between  local 
communities.  Of  course,  since  the  original  purpose  of  the  state  was  to 
devote  to  the  support  of  schools  certain  incidental  revenues,  it  may  be 
said  that  there  was  a  conscious  purpose  to  equalize  revenue  resources 
between  the  state  and  the  localities.  There  is,  however,  no  statement 
of  purpose  from  any  public  officer,  now  available,  which  would  justify 
the  opinion  that  the  framers  of  the  laws  of  1834  and  1836  sought  to 
equalize  the  burden  of  the  support  of  the  common  schools  among  the 
counties  or  districts  of  the  state.  Some  rearrangement  of  the  burden 
would,  of  course,  result  from  any  subvention  system. 

It  is  also  impossible  to  state  with  definiteness  what  was  in  the  minds 
of  the  men  who  agitated  for  the  schools,  and  who  worked  and  voted  in  the 
General  Assembly  for  the  bill  creating  the  subvention.  But  there  seems 
to  be  little  doubt  that  the  desire  to  induce  the  localities  to  establish  a 
much  needed  service  was  the  controlling  motive.  It  requires  no  argu- 
ment in  this  day  of  extended  free  school  systems  to  show  that  elementary 
education  is  one  of  the  services  performed  by  local  units  in  which  the 
entire  state  has  much  at  stake.  For  the  state  to  require  the  districts  to 
provide  a  minimum  of  schooling  for  each  child  would  not  now  be  con- 
sidered an  undue  interference  with  local  home-rule  even  though  no 
compensation,  in  the  form  of  a  subvention,  were  offered. 

In  1834,  in  Pennsylvania,  the  case  was  different,  and  a  strong  minority 
denied  the  justice  of  taxing  all  property  for  the  support  of  free  common 
schools.  "The  fundamental  principle  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  govern- 
ment by  common  and  united  means  to  provide  for  common  education, 
is  not  universally  admitted,"  wrote  the  state  superintendent  in  1841. 98 
Permissive  taxation  without  state  aid  had  been  tried  in  1824  and  had  been 

98  Report  (1841),  p.  18. 


70  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

immediately  rejected;  and  although  public  sentiment  had  undoubtedly 
advanced  considerably  toward  a  more  liberal  view  of  the  desirability  of 
free  common  schools,  a  large  majority  of  the  people  was  by  no  means  in 
favor  of  them  in  1834.  Almost  as  soon  as  the  provisions  of  that  act 
became  known  throughout  the  state,  a  great  outcry  arose  against  it. 
At  the  elections  following  the  passage  of  the  law,  502  districts  voted  to 
accept  the  system,  while  264  rejected  it  directly,  57  took  no  action  what- 
ever, and  164  did  not  even  make  reports  to  the  state  superintendent." 
Nor  was  the  opposition  entirely  passive;  for,  as  Wickersham,  who  dwells 
at  length  upon  this  "fight  for  free  schools,"  has  recorded,  literally  hun- 
dreds of  petitions  containing  thousands  of  signatures  were  sent  to  the 
General  Assembly  asking  the  repeal  of  the  new  law  and  the  return  to  the 
pauper  school  law  of  1809.100  "  Free  schools  or  no  free  schools  "  was  made 
a  political  issue  in  the  state  campaign  of  1834,  and  many  members  came 
to  the  legislative  session  of  1834-35  pledged  to  do  all  in  their  power  to 
secure  the  repeal  or  the  modification  of  the  law  that  made  the  system 
possible.  A  few  members  relying  on  the  practice  of  local  legislation 
tried  to  have  the  operation  of  the  law  suspended  for  their  counties.  But 
all  attempts  to  repeal  the  act  or  to  pass  crippling  amendments  were 
defeated,  and  the  modification  of  the  clumsy  provisions  concerning  the 
county  convention  was  deferred  to  the  following  year. 

The  organized  opposition  to  the  new  system  came  chiefly  from 
"Old  Pennsylvania,"  that  is,  the  eastern  and  southeastern  parts  of  the 
state,  while  the  northern  counties  and  the  newer  sections  west  of  the 
mountains  were  not  generally  opposed  to  the  free  schools,  although  they 
were  very  frequently  in  favor  of  minor  modifications  of  the  act.101  This 
opposition  had  four  principal  sources.  In  the  first  place  the  religious 
bodies  that  had  established  parochial  schools,  particularly  the  Friends 
and  the  numerous  German  denominations,  were  averse  to  the  intro- 

99  Wickersham,  p.  322. 

100  On  the  matter  of  the  petitions,  see  also  Hazard's  Register  of  Pennsylvania, 
XV,  p.  205.    At  the  session  of  1834-35,  558  petitions  for  a  repeal  of  the  law,  containing 
31,988  names  were  received.     There  were  also  50  petitions  with  2,084  signers,  for 
modification,  and  49  petitions  with  2,575  signers  against  repeal. 

101  Mayo,  A.  D.  The  American  Common  School  in  New  York,  New  Jersey,  and 
Pennsylvania  during  the  First  Half  Century  of  The  Republic,  in  Report  of  the  United 
States  Commissioner  of  Education  for  1895-96, 1,  pp.  263  ff . 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  71 

duction  of  the  public  schools.  The  new  system  left  these  people  free  to 
maintain  their  semi-religious  schools,  but  they  objected  to  paying  taxes 
for  the  support  of  a  public  institution  that  they  felt  they  could  not 
patronize.  Furthermore  they  could  easily  foresee  the  downfall  of  the 
parochial  school  once  the  free  public  school  was  well  established.102 

In  the  second  place  there  was  the  opposition  of  the  wealthier  families 
who  desired  to  educate  their  children  in  private  schools  or  by  employing 
tutors.  These  families  intended,  no  doubt,  to  continue  so  to  educate 
their  children,  and  were  opposed  to  the  democratization  of  the  common 
schools,  partly  as  a  matter  of  principle,  and  partly  because  they  feared 
the  effect  that  the  school  expenditures  would  have  upon  the  tax  rate.103 

A  third  source  of  opposition  came  from  those  sections  of  the  state 
where  the  German  language  was  largely  in  use.104  It  must  be  remem- 
bered that  nowhere,  perhaps,  in  the  country  have  any  non-English  speak- 
ing people  clung  with  such  tenacity  to  the  language  and  customs  of  their 
fatherland  as  have  the  Pennsylvania  Germans.  At  the  time  the  school 
system  was  introduced  entire  neighborhoods  were  almost  as  German 
in  speech,  dress,  and  social  customs  as  were  the  inhabitants  of  the  Pala- 
tinate communities  from  which  their  ancestors  emigrated  to  America. 
These  Germans  saw  in  the  public  common  school  the  agency  that  should 
wean  their  children  from  the  customs  and  language  of  their  fathers. 
Their  opposition,  if  not  the  most  bitter,  was  the  most  prolonged  that  the 
free  schools  had  to  encounter. 

In  counties  other  than  those  settled  chiefly  by  the  Germans,  the  most 
determined  opposition  came  from  persons  who  denied  the  right  of  the 
state  to  tax  them  for  the  education  of  children  whose  parents  were 
financially  able  to  provide  for  their  schooling.  Hardly  to  be  differen- 
tiated from  this  type  of  opposition  was  that  of  a  large  class  who  were 
willing  enough  to  educate  their  children  at  public  expense,  but  who  com- 
plained loudly  of  the  high  taxes  that  the  free  schools  would  necessitate. 
This  opposition,  which  was  directed  against  local  taxation,  was  to  be 
found  in  practically  every  community  of  the  state  and  was,  on  that 
account,  all  the  more  formidable.  Commenting  on  the  grudging  financial 

102  For  contemporary  statements  concerning  opposition  to  the  free  public  schools 
see  statements  of  Mr.  Dickey  in  the   Constitutional  Convention   of    1837-38,  Pro- 
ceedings and  Debates,  V,  p.  245;  of  Mr.  Hiester,  idem,  XI,  p.  135;  and  of  Mr.  Darlington 
idem,  XI,  p.  134. 

103  For  a  satirical  characterization  of  these  "nabobs,"  see  Thaddeus  Stevens' 
speech  in  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  1837-38,  Proceedings  and  Debates,  V,  p.  352, 

104  Mayo,  p.  261;  also  statement  of  Mr.  Cox  in  the  Constitutional  Convention, 
of  1837-38,  Proceedings  and  Debates  V,  pp.  265-266. 


72  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

support  of  the  people  in  the  local  districts,  in  1838,  the  state  superin- 
tendent wrote,  "At  present  the  best  means  of  aiding  the  cause  of  common 
school  education  is  to  forbear  coupling  it,  to  any  extent  that  can  possibly 
be  avoided,  with  the  unpopularity  of  the  tax  collector,  and  to  sustain 
it,  as  far  as  practicable,  out  of  the  State  Treasury.  "105 

Further  evidence  of  the  indispensability  of  the  state  subvention 
might  be  cited  were  it  necessary,  but  it  seems  clear  that  the  opposition 
to  the  system  at  this  time  would  in  many  instances  have  succeeded  in 
preventing  its  acceptance  and  would  have  seriously  impeded  its  progress 
throughout  the  commonwealth,  had  not  the  state  been  able  to  contribute 
liberally  to  its  support  during  the  years  1836  to  1840.  The  subvention, 
therefore,  was  of  the  greatest  aid  to  the  cause  of  free  common  schools 
in  two  ways;  first,  by  contributing  directly  to  their  support,  and  second, 
by  inciting  the  districts  to  levy  taxes  for  their  maintenance.  The  mere 
appropriation  of  money  from  the  treasury  accomplished  the  first  purpose, 
while  the  requirement  for  local  taxation  as  a  condition  prerequisite  to 
obtaining  state  aid  achieved  the  latter. 

PERMANENT  AND  OCCASIONAL  SUBVENTIONS  TO  ACADEMIES,  SEMINARIES 
AND  COLLEGES,  1826  TO  1844 

There  was  no  important  change  in  the  policy  of  the  state  toward 
academies  and  colleges  until  1838.  Table  I  in  the  appendix  shows  that 
in  1830,  1831,  and  in  1833,  no  payments  were  made  to  academies  or 
seminaries,  and  during  the  three  years  1835,  1836  and  1837  the  total 
expenditures  from  the  state  treasury  for  their  benefit  amounted  to  less 
than  $1,000.  The  state  had  failed  to  establish  a  system  of  secondary 
education  by  subsidizing  private  institutions  and  the  smallness  of  the 
grants  is  indicative  of  lack  of  confidence  in  the  existing  institutions. 
During  the  years  1826  to  1838  colleges  fared  somewhat  better,  but  in 
only  one  year  were  payments  for  their  support  of  importance. 

In  1836  the  contributions  of  the  state  for  the  support  of  the  academies 
during  the  preceding  years  totaled  $169,000  in  cash  or  wealth  readily 

106  Report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Commonwealth  to  the  Constitutional  Conven- 
tion of  1837-38,  Proceedings  and  Debates,  III,  p.  10.  This  source  of  objection  to  the 
introduction  of  free  schools  was  widespread,  and  Pennsylvania  cannot  be  supposed 
to  have  offered  a  peculiar  example  for,  as  Professor  Swift  has  shown,  one  of  the  reasons 
for  the  general  establishment  of  the  permanent  school  funds  during  the  first  quarter 
of  the  century  was  to  avoid  the  necessity  of  levying  heavy  local  taxes.  And  the  use 
of  the  permanent  school-fund  income  to  incite  local  authorities  to  greater  efforts  on 
behalf  of  the  common  schools  was  well  recognized  in  New  York,  Massachusetts,  and 
Maine.  See  also  Mayo,  p.  260. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  73 

convertible  into  cash.  Lands  whose  estimated  value  approximated 
$135,000  had  also  been  donated  to  them.106  Very  few  of  the  schools 
that  had  received  these  gifts  were  then  in  operation  and  a  majority  of 
those  still  running  were  engaged  in  teaching  elementary  subjects.  The 
opinion  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Commonwealth  concerning  the  earlier 
subvention  policy  of  the  state  toward  these  institutions  is  enlightening. 
"It  is  believed,"  he  wrote,  "that  no  grants  have  ever  been  made  by  the 
State  with  less  general  good  effect  than  those  to  academies.  It  seems 
to  have  been  intended  to  endow  one  strong  institution  of  this  kind  in 
each  county,  as  a  kind  of  radiating  point  in  the  county  system  of  educa- 
tion; but  the  project  has  proved  nearly  a  total  failure."107  The  opinion 
of  the  Secretary  (who  was  also,  it  must  be  remembered,  at  this  time 
the  Superintendent  of  Common  Schools)  that  the  academies  had  failed 
miserably,  was  supported  by  Mr.  Morgan,  an  ex-president  of  Western 
University,  who  reported  to  a  voluntary  organization  in  Philadelphia, 
that  the  policy  of  the  state  in  endowing  academies  and  small  colleges 
without  reference  to  the  needs  of  the  different  communities  had  not  been 
accompanied  by  success.108  In  fact,  the  belief  that  the  subventions  to 
secondary  schools  had  failed  to  promote  the  upbuilding  of  such  schools 
seems  to  have  been  generally  concurred  in.  In  the  debates  of  the  con- 
stitutional convention  practically  no  one  ventured  to  defend  the  sub- 
vention policy  pursued  in  earlier  years. 

The  reasons  for  the  failure  of  the  state  to  cause  the  development  of 
secondary  schools  by  means  of  subventions  before  1838  are  not  difficult 
to  discover.  In  the  first  place,  the  policy  assumed  that  if  the  state 
assisted  the  academies  and  seminaries,  the  parochial,  subscription,  and 
other  private  schools  might  be  trusted  to  take  care  of  elementary  educa- 
tion. Such  an  assumption,  we  can  now  understand,  was  erroneous. 
It  was  impossible  for  the  secondary  schools  to  prosper  until  a  considerable 
number  of  pupils  had  been  sufficiently  trained  in  the  elementary  sub- 
jects to  be  able  to  pursue  the  more  advanced.  It  was  also  assumed  that 
the  parochial  and  private  schools  would  furnish  students  for  the  acade- 
mies. But  experience  proved  that  only  a  relatively  small  proportion 
of  the  pupils  passed  from  the  elementary  to  the  secondary  schools. 
And  the  lack  of  a  large  number  of  pupils  educated  in  public  common 

106  Report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Commonwealth  to  the  Constitutional  Conven- 
tion of  1837-38,  Proceedings  and  Debates,  III,  p.  7. 


108  A  Report  on  Public  Education,  (1836),  p.  14. 


74  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

schools  could  not  be  offset  by  the  small  number  that  the  occasionally 
well-conducted  private  schools  could  supply.  The  mistake  was  made 
in  applying  state  aid  at  the  wrong  point. 

Another  defect  in  the  early  policy  was  its  lack  of  system.  The  politi- 
cal influences  that  were  brought  to  bear  upon  the  legislature  resulted  in 
endowing  too  many  academies  The  General  Assembly  had  no  means 
at  hand  to  determine,  when  an  academy  applied  for  a  charter,  whether 
there  was  within  the  county  in  which  it  was  to  be  located  any  real  reason 
for  its  existence.  Furthermore,  there  seems  to  have  been  practically 
no  attempt  to  inquire  into  the  financial  support  that  the  academy  could 
command  in  addition  to  the  state  grant.  Thus  it  came  about  that  the 
legislature  chartered  indiscriminately  and  aided  too  widely.  The  appli- 
cation of  $169,000  in  cash  and  of  lands  worth  $135,000  to  a  few  good 
institutions  properly  distributed  throughout  the  state,  might  have 
brought  fair  returns,  but  the  granting  of  the  same  amount  to  forty-five 
schools,  over  a  period  of  about  fifty  years,  was  a  careless  waste  of  re- 
sources. In  1836  it  was  supposed  that  only  seventeen  of  the  forty-five 
were  in  operation,  and  many  of  these  were  giving  elementary  instruc- 
tion.109 Even  Wickersham,  who  is  inclined  to  see  some  good  in  all  the 
attempts  made  by  the  state  and  by  individuals  to  assist  in  building  up 
educational  institutions,  criticises  severely  the  policy  of  the  legislature 
in  dealing  with  the  academies.110 

After  so  dismal  a  failure,  it  was  scarcely  to  be  expected  that  the  state 
would  revive  the  grants  to  academies.  Soon  after  the  passage  of  the 
common  school  law  of  1836,  however,  it  became  evident  that  an  attempt 
would  be  made  to  increase  the  subsidies  to  these  institutions.  This  was 
due  to  the  then  recent  establishment  of  the  system  of  common  schools. 
When  the  laws  of  1834  and  of  1836  went  into  effect  it  was  discovered  that 
there  was  a  great  dearth  of  competent  teachers.  And,  as  was  obvious, 
the  public  schools  could  not  be  expected  to  succeed  unless  some  provision 
was  made  for  training  the  men  and  women  who  expected  to  teach  in  them. 
The  lack  of  trained  teachers  and  the  absence  of  secondary  schools  or 
training  schools,  in  which  they  might  be  prepared,  was  commented  upon 
by  nearly  every  state  superintendent  of  common  schools  throughout  this 
period.111  It  was  but  natural  that  under  the  circumstances  an  attempt 
would  be  made  to  revive  the  defunct  academies. 

109  Report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Commonweatlh  to  the  Constitutional  Conven- 
tion of  1837-38,  Proceedings  and  Debates,  III,  p.  7. 

110  Pp.  382-384. 

111  See  for  example  the  statement  of  Superintendent  Burrowes,  Report  (1838),  p.  17. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  75 

In  the  second  place,  after  the  elementary  schools  were  established  the 
more  enthusiastic  educators  began  to  plan  for  publicly  supported  second- 
ary schools.  The  act  of  1836  had  given  the  controllers  of  the  Philadel- 
phia schools  the  authority  to  establish  a  central  high  school  for  those  of 
its  youth  who  desired  further  education  after  leaving  the  elementary 
schools.112  Since  there  was  no  limitation  as  to  the  use  that  that  city 
might  make  of  its  share  of  the  subvention,  which  would  preclude  such 
a  procedure,  it  may  be  said  that  the  state  was  here  aiding  secondary 
education.113  In  1838  the  state  superintendent  advocated  state  aid 
not  only  for  private  academies  but  also  for  secondary  and  practical 
business  schools  and  for  colleges.  The  secondary  and  the  practical 
schools  he  believed  should  be  free  and  supported  by  taxation.114  There 
was  a  general  movement  to  complete,  or  at  least  to  advance  toward 
completion,  a  system  of  public  education  extending  from  the  primary 
grades  through  the  college. 

In  1838  the  legislature  passed  an  act  to  encourage  the  arts  and 
sciences,  to  promote  the  teaching  of  useful  knowledge,  and  to  support 
colleges,  academies  and  female  seminaries.115  It  was  provided  that  $  1 ,000 
should  be  paid  annually  to  each  college  or  university  that  was  already 
incorporated,  or  that  might  be  incorporated  in  the  future,  having  four 
or  more  professors  and  one  hundred  students.  The  state  also  agreed  to 
pay  from  $300  to  $500  annually  to  each  academy  or  female  seminary 
that  then  was,  or  should  in  the  future  be  incorporated.115 

Practically  no  limitations  were  placed  upon  the  grant.  With  respect 
to  curriculum  it  was  required  merely  that  teachers  must  be  employed 
capable  of  giving  instruction  in  Latin,  Greek,  mathematics  and  English, 
or  English  and  German  literature.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  act 
did  not  require  that  any  one  of  these  subjects  be  taught,  and  there  was 
no  provision  for  administrative  inquiry  into  the  qualifications  of  the 
teachers  employed.  Reports  to  the  state  superintendent  were  required 
as  to  the  conduct  of  the  seminaries,  academies,  and  colleges,  but  an 

112  Sec.  23,  Act  13  June,  1836,  P,L.  p.  533. 

113  The  cost  of  maintaining  this  high  school  was  about  $14,000  annually.     See 
Reports  of  the  Controllers  for  1839  and  1844. 

114  Supt.  Common  Schools,  Report  (1838),  p.  16. 
118  Act  12  April,  1838,  P.L.  pp.  333-334. 

116  The  amount  paid  depended  upon  the  number  of  teachers  and  of  pupils  taught. 
Academies  and  seminaries  having  at  least  15  students  and  one  or  more  teachers  com- 
petent to  teach  certain  subjects  were  to  be  paid  $300,  those  having  from  25  to  40 
pupils  and  one  teacher  $400, 40  pupils  or  over  and  two  or  more  teachers  $500. 


76  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

inspection  of  the  reports  of  that  officer  fails  to  reveal  anything  but  the 
most  superficial  generalities  concerning  education  in  these  institutions. 

As  might  have  been  expected,  a  large  number  of  academies  and  sem- 
inaries immediately  sought  to  obtain  a  share  in  the  subvention.  At  the 
session  of  the  General  Assembly  during  which  the  subvention  act  was 
passed  twenty-seven  seminaries  and  nineteen  academies  were  incorpora- 
ted and  in  the  following  year  eight  seminaries  and  twenty-six  academies 
were  chartered.117  During  the  first  year  of  operation  of  the  law  forty- 
three  academies  and  fifteen  seminaries  were  paid  money  under  the  pro- 
visions of  the  act,  and  in  1843  sixty-four  academies  and  thirty-seven 
seminaries  received  the  subsidy.118 

In  1839  the  legislature  awoke  to  the  fact  that  unless  some  check  were 
put  upon  the  increase  of  academies  and  seminaries,  either  the  subsidy 
would  automatically  absorb  a  very  large  part  of  the  revenue  of  the  state, 
or  it  would  be  necessary  to  reduce  the  amount  of  the  grant  to  each  school. 
In  that  year  at  least  seven  academies  were  incorporated  with  charters 
providing  that  they  should  not  participate  in  the  annual  state  subsidy, 
while  one  received  a  gift  of  $2,000  for  building  purposes  with  no  right  of 
participation.119 

In  1839,  the  first  year  in  which  the  system  was  really  in  full  operation, 
the  subsidies  paid  under  this  act  amounted  to  $38,994,  while  in  1843, 
$48,298  were  disbursed.120  The  act  of  1838  had  provided  that  this 
subsidy  should  be  paid  for  ten  years,  but  in  1843  the  legislature,  looking 
about  for  opportunities  to  economize,  reduced  the  subvention  to  $23,500 
and  repealed  the  act  of  1838.121  In  the  following  year  no  appropriation 
was  made  to  these  institutions.122  The  making  of  outright  gifts  of  money 
had  practically  been  discontinued  in  1843  and  the  act  of  1844  put  an 
end  to  the  annual  subvention  to  these  institutions. 

Whether  or  not  this  second  attempt  to  build  up  secondary  schools  by 
means  of  an  annual  subvention  would  have  been  more  successful  than 

117  See  indices  of  session  laws  for  years  given,  under  "Academies,"  and  under 
"Seminaries." 

118  Wickersham,  p.  386. 

119  See  acts  passed  in  1839,  P.L.  pp.  481,  505,  508,  312, 477,  494  and  196.    Wicker- 
sham,  p.  386,  asserts  that  the  beginning  of  the  non-participating  charters  came  in  1840. 

120  Wickersham,  p.  387,  and  reports  of  state  superintendents  for  years  1838  to 
1843.    These  amounts  are  smaller  than  the  amounts  given  in  Table  I,  because  that 
table  includes  all  payments  to  academies,  seminaries  and  colleges,  whether  occasional 
grants  or  subventions  paid  under  the  act  of  1838. 

121  Act  29  Sept.,  1843,  P.L.  of  1844,  p.  6. 

122  See  Act  31  May,  1844,  P.L.  pp.  582-588. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  77 

the  policy  of  haphazard  occasional  grants  cannot,  of  course,  be  definitely 
determined.  The  amount  of  the  annual  subvention  to  each  academy 
and  each  seminary  was  not  large  enough  to  have  constituted  its  main 
financial  support.  It  was  large  enough,  however,  to  have  been  of  mater- 
ial assistance  to  those  institutions  that  could  command  a  respectable 
support  from  the  population  surrounding  them. 

The  most  serious  defects  in  the  policy  as  set  forth  in  the  act  of  1838 
are  not  to  be  found  in  the  amount  of  the  subvention,  but  in  the  failure 
of  the  legislature  properly  to  safeguard  it.  In  the  first  place  the  legisla- 
ture took  no  measures  to  prevent  schools  that  could  not  command  local 
support  from  obtaining  charters  and  participating  in  the  subvention. 
When  the  state  aids  a  local  institution  it  should  always  see  to  it  that  the 
revenue  resources  of  that  institution,  other  than  state  money,  are  suffi- 
cient when  added  to  the  subvention  adequately  to  perform  the  services 
it  is  intended  to  render.  Furthermore,  the  state  should  not  make  the 
subvention  to  institutions  unless  they  are  performing  a  service  of  great 
public  benefit  and  performing  it  in  such  a  manner  as  to  command  the 
respect  and  moral  support  of  the  people  about  them.  In  making  the 
subvention  to  secondary  education,  the  General  Assembly  did  not  ob- 
serve these  two  principles. 

Another  defect  in  the  act  of  1838  was  its  failure  to  provide  for  central 
supervision  of  the  service  aided.  This  defect  followed  naturally  from 
the  failure  to  appreciate  the  two  principles  just  enumerated. 

When  the  subvention  to  secondary  schools  was  repealed  in  1844,  the 
subsidy  to  colleges  was  also  stopped,  and  the  nine  institutions  that  had 
received  assistance  from  the  state  treasury,  varying  in  amount  from 
$3,500  to  $10,354,  were  cut  off  with  as  little  ceremony  as  were  the  acad- 
emies and  seminaries.  The  act  of  1838  was  a  much  more  judicious  mea- 
sure than  the  earlier  plan  whereby  colleges  were  granted  lands,  loaned 
money,  and  subsidized  in  a  haphazard  fashion.  What  was  the  actual 
benefit  of  the  short-lived  subsidy  of  1838,  or  what  might  have  been  ex- 
pected of  it  in  the  future  are  only  matters  for  conjecture.  The  law 
required  no  audit  either  for  the  secondary  schools  or  for  the  colleges, 
nor  did  it  apply  any  control  except  the  mild  requirement  of  a  report  to 
the  state  superintendent  of  common  schools.  The  failure  to  control 
the  colleges  was,  of  course,  less  to  be  condemned  than  lack  of  supervisory 
power  over  the  secondary  schools,  because  the  former  were  not  in  an 
intermediate  position,  and  because  they  were  probably  in  the  hands  of 
more  capable  men.  Contrary  to  the  experience  in  the  case  of  the  second- 
ary schools,  the  granting  of  the  subsidy,  in  1838,  did  not  lead  to  the 


78  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

chartering  of  more  colleges,  and  it  may  be  assumed  that  the  annual 
subvention  of  $1,000  was  too  small  to  tempt  anyone  to  establish  a  new 
institution.  Or,  perhaps,  the  fate  of  many  small  colleges  chartered 
during  the  land-grant  period  served  as  a  warning  effectually  to  prevent 
the  repetition  of  the  over-provision  of  that  day. 

MISCELLANEOUS  OCCASIONAL  GRANTS,  1826  TO  1844 

In  the  preceding  sections  of  this  chapter  permanent  and  occasional 
subventions  to  charity  and  to  reformatory  institutions,  the  permanent 
grants  in  aid  and  the  occasional  subventions  to  education  have  been 
dealt  with.  The  tendency  of  the  period  was  to  make  the  grants  per- 
manent. Those  to  the  institutions  for  defectives  and  to  the  House  of 
Refuge  soon  became  permanent,  and  in  the  case  of  education,  the  com- 
mon school  subvention  and  the  subvention  to  academies,  seminaries, 
and  colleges,  shows  the  same  tendency  at  work. 

With  respect  to  highway  maintenance,  however,  the  case  was  differ- 
ent, and  there  was,  so  far  as  can  now  be  determined,  no  tendency  to 
substitute  a  permanent  grant  for  occasional  aids.  The  explanation  of 
this  is  partly  to  be  found  in  the  nature  of  the  service  aided.  The  greatest 
expense  for  roads  in  a  new  country,  or  in  an  old  one  that  is  just  awakening 
to  the  need  of  improved  highways,  comes  when  the  roads  and  bridges 
are  first  constructed.  Subsequent  maintenance  expenses  were,  in  the 
days  of  slowly  moving  horse-drawn  vehicles,  relatively  I  ight.  Hence 
there  was  no  especial  need  for  assistance  in  keeping  the  roads  in  repair. 
Another  reason  for  the  occasional  grant  rather  than  the  permanent 
subsidy  was  that  the  service  was  largely  of  local  interest.  With  the 
exception  of  the  turnpiked  roads,  which  it  was  hoped  would  serve 
as  feeders  for  the  canals  and  navigable  rivers,  no  one  but  the  people 
in  the  immediate  neighborhood  was  interested  in  the  state  of  the  highways 
in  a  given  township  or  county.  As  we  have  already  seen,  one  of  the 
strongest  reasons  for  the  establishment  of  the  permanent  suvbentions 
was  the  fact  that  the  services  aided  were  of  state-wide  interest.  This 
was  true  in  the  case  of  the  schools  for  defectives,  the  House  of  Refuge, 
and  especially  the  educational  institutions.  There  was  no  such  common 
interest  in  road  building  at  this  time.  Hence  the  grants  could  not 
command  the  same  support  from  the  common  treasury. 

The  policy  of  making  grants  to  assist  the  localities  in  the  construction 
of  highways  or  bridges  in  particularly  difficult  regions,  which  was  begun 
in  the  last  decade  of  the  eighteenth  century,  was  continued  into  this- 
period.  The  type  of  grant  was  changed  in  no  important  particulars- 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  79 

The  amount  given  usually  ranged  from  $200  to  $600.  Control  and  audit 
were,  as  a  rule,  by  the  regular  county  auditors  or,  in  few  instances,  by 
the  court  of  quarter  sessions.123 

In  a  few  cases  the  appropriation  acts  provided  that  the  payment  of 
the  state  grant  should  be  complete  only  in  case  the  localities  raised, 
either  by  local  taxation  or  by  subscription,  an  additional  amount  for 
the  improvement  contemplated.124  The  state  also  continued,  as  during 
the  earlier  period,  to  appoint  commissioners  to  lay  out  new  roads  and 
to  assess  the  cost  upon  the  counties  in  which  they  were  located.125  The 
extravagant  years  of  1836  to  1838  do  not  seem  to  have  produced  the 
same  revival  of  the  grants  for  roads  that  was  observed  with  respect  to 
other  services.  Perhaps  this  was  because  the  state  was  becoming 
fairly  well  provided  with  highways  and  because  the  incorporated  turn- 
pike companies  were  supposed  to  look  after  the  main  roads.  By  1844 
practically  no  payments  were  made  to  aid  in  local  road-building  and 
maintenance. 

123  See  a  grant  to  the  commissioners  of  Berks  County,  Act  4  April,  1837,  P.L.  pp. 
353-354. 

124  See,  for  example,  Act  13  April,  1827,  P.L.  p.  256. 

12*Act  5  April,  1826,  P.L.  pp.  208-212;  Act  14  April,  1827,  P.L.  p.  400;  Act  1 
April,  1830,  P.L.  p.  137. 


CHAPTER  V 
THE  HISTORY  OF  SUBVENTIONS  FROM  1844  TO  1873 

THE  FINANCIAL  POLICY  or  THE  STATE,  1844  TO  1873 

The  year  1844  marks  the  end  of  the  period  of  expansion  of  the  Penn- 
sylvania system  of  state  works  and,  therefore,  the  end  of  one  epoch  of 
the  fmanc'al  history  of  the  state.  From  that  time  until  the  works  were 
sold,  in  1857  and  in  1858,1  only  the  completion  of  lines  already  under- 
taken and  the  construction  of  branches  or  feeders  was  attempted.  Dur- 
ing the  years  immediately  succeeding  1844  the  state  attempted  to  sell 
the  canals,  but  since  no  bidders  could  be  found  to  purchase  them  under 
the  conditions  imposed,  they  remained  under  state  control.2  They 
were,  however,  a  liability  rather  than  an  asset. 

The  net  revenue  derived  from  the  canals  was  very  small  during  the 
entire  period  1844  to  1858.  In  1856,  for  example,  the  gross  receipts 
of  the  entire  system  were  only  about  $60,000  in  excess  of  operating 
expenses,  payments  for  renewals  and  certain  small  extensions.  In  1857 
Governor  Pollock  stated  that  the  total  of  all  receipts  from  the  state  works 
was  $2,006,015.66,  and  that "  The  extraordinary  payments  during  the  year 
[1856]  amounted  to  $808,892.16;  ordinary  expenditures,  $1,135,004.00; 
net  revenue,  (excluding  extraordinary  payments  and  for  motive  power) 
$871,011.00.  "3  Since  we  are  concerned  only  with  the  effect  of  the  man- 

1  The  sale  of  the  main  line  was  authorized  by  Act  16  May,  1857,  P.L.  pp.  519-526. 
The  main  line  of  the  public  works  included:  "the  Philadelphia  and  Columbia  railroad; 
the  canal  from  Columbia  to  the  Junction  at  Duncan's  Island;  the  Juniata  canal  from 
thence  to  Hollidaysburg;  the  Allegheny  Portage  railroad,  including  the  new  road  to 
avoid  the  inclined  planes,  and  the  canal  from  Johnstown  to  Pittsburg  with  all  property 
thereto  appertaining  or  in  anywise  connected  therewith."     Ibid.    The  sale  of  the 
various  branch  lines  was  authorized  by  Act  21  April,  1858,  P.L.  pp.  414-419.    The 
branch  line  canals  were  constructed  as  feeders  of  the  main  line  of  state  works.  There  were 
four  divisions  known  as  the  Upper  and  Lower  North  Branch,  the  West  Branch,  and 
the  Susquehanna  division.    Ibid.    The  Pennsylvania  Railroad  Company  purchased 
the  main  line  for  $7,500,000  giving  its  bonds  in  payment,  with  the  stipulation  that 
these  bonds  should  be  repaid  at  specified  intervals.     Annual  Message  of  the  Governor, 
1858,  Pennsylvania  Archives  IV  Ser.  VII  p.  935.     The  Sunbury  and  Erie  Railroad 
Company  agreed  to  pay  the  state  $3,500,000  for  the  branch  lines,  Annual  Message  of 
the  Governor,  1859,  Idem,  VIII,  p.  93. 

2  Aud.  Gen.  Report  (1880),  pp.  285-287. 

3  Annual  Message  of  the  Governor,  1857,  Pennsylvania  Archives  IV  Ser.  VII,  pp. 
874-875. 

80 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 


81 


agement  of  the  works  upon  the  state's  financial  policy,  and  not  with 
the  profitableness  of  the  canals  as  isolated  business  ventures,  the  impor- 
tant thing  to  notice  is  that  of  the  $871,011.00  "net  revenue"  (excluding 
cost  of  motive  power!)  $808,892.16  was  used  in  canal  maintenance  or 
extension.  The  interest  on  the  debt  contracted  to  build  the  canals, 
which  was  in  excess  of  a  million  and  a  half  annually,  was  met  by  taxa- 
tion.4 

The  attempt  to  stop  the  increase  in  the  bonded  indebtedness  of 
the  state  was  not  successful  as  long  as  the  works  remained  under  state 
control,  as  the  following  table  shows. 


AMOUNT  OF  THE  STATE  DEBT,  AND  ANNUAL  INTEREST  PAYMENTS 
FROM  THE  STATE  TREASURY,  1844-18601 


Annual 

Annual 

Amount  of 

Interest 

Amount  of 

Interest 

Year2 

Debt 

Payments 

Year2 

Debt 

Payments 

(000) 

During  Year 

(000) 

During  Year 

(000) 

(000) 

1844 

$40,835 

$      50 

1853 

$40,566 

$2,105 

1845 

40,896 

1,790 

1854 

40,613 

2,074 

1846 

40,790 

1,992 

1855 

40,197 

2,077 

1847 

40,629 

2,007 

1856 

40,118 

2,048 

1848 

40,475 

2,012 

1857 

39,882 

2,034 

1849 

40,511 

2,017 

1858 

39,488 

1,989 

1850 

40,775 

2,009 

1859 

38,639 

1,986 

1851 

40,114 

2,026 

1860 

37,970 

1,929 

1852 

41,525 

2,071 

1  These  figures  are  taken  from  the  Reports  of  the  Auditors  General.  The  amount 
of  the  debt  is  given  as  outstanding  on  the  first  day  of  the  fiscal  year,  Dec.  1.  The 
interest  payments  are  for  the  year  preceding.  The  interest  figures  contain  amounts, 
usually  less  than  $50,000,  for  interest  on  temporary  loans,  which  are  apparently  not 
included  in  the  total  debts.  These  interest  payments  cannot  be  accurately  separated. 
Cf.  Tenth  Census,  VII,  Taxation,  Valuation  and  Public  Indebtedness,  p.  542.  The 
amount  of  the  debt  includes  funded  debt,  relief  notes,  interest  certificates,  temporary 
loans  and  amounts  borrowed  from  banks. 

*  Amount  of  debt  is  given  for  Dec.  1  of  year  indicated. 


4  See  "An  Act  to  retire  the  State  Debt 
P.L.  pp.  497-503. 


.   "  Sees.  32-48,  Act  29  April,  1844, 


82 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 


The  interest  payments  due  each  year  until  1859  amounted  an- 
nually to  approximately  $2,000,000  for  the  funded  debt  alone.  Pre- 
vious to  1847  the  state  did  not  meet  the  entire  interest  charge  from  its 
revenues,  but  issued  interest  certificates  which  were  added  to  the  debt. 
The  amount  of  the  total  expenditures  of  the  state,  the  amount  of  interest 
payments,  and  the  total  revenue  are  shown  in  the  following  table: 

TOTAL  EXPENDITURES,  INTEREST  PAYMENTS,  AND  TOTAL 
REVENUES,  FOR  CERTAIN  YEARS,  1846-18601 


Year 

Total 

Interest 

Total 

ending 

Expenditures 

Payments 

Revenues 

Nov.  30 

(000) 

(000) 

(000) 

1846 

$3,2252 

$1,992 

$2,115* 

1850 

2,6903 

2,009 

2,7046 

1855 

3,225* 

2,077 

3,3907 

1860 

2,962 

1,929 

3,3788 

1  From  Reports  of  Auditors  General. 

2  Does  not  include  expenditures  for  canals  and  for  payment  of  relief  notes. 

3  Does  not  include  expenditures  for  canals,  nor  payments  to  commissioners  of  the 
sinking  fund. 

4  Does  not  include  expenditures  for  improvement  and  cost  of  operation  of  public 
works,  payments  to  commissioners  of  the  sinking  fund,  nor  rebate  of  taxes,  otherwise 
the  total  is  as  given  by  the  Auditor  General. 

5  Does  not  include  receipts  from  canals  and  railroads,  canal  fines,  sales  of  canal 
material,  nor  refunds. 

6  Does  not  include  canal  tolls,  fines,  sales  of  canal  material  nor  refunds. 

7  Does  not  include  canal  tolls  nor  refunds. 

8  Does  not  include  repayment  of  debts,  nor  refunds. 


The  outbreak  of  the  Civil  War  caused  an  immediate  increase  in  the 
public  debt;  but  a  part  of  the  funds  expended  by  the  state  was  soon 
repaid  by  the  federal  government,  and  the  debt  was  speedily  reduced  to 
a  lower  figure  than  that  of  1860,  as  the  following  table  shows: 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 


83 


AMOUNT  OF  THE  STATE  DEBT  AND  ANNUAL  INTEREST  PAYMENTS, 
1861  to  1873  INCLUSIVE1 


Year 

Amount 

Interest 

Amount 

Interest 

ending 

of  Debt 

Payments 

Year2 

of  Debt 

Payments 

Nov.  30 

(000) 

(000) 

(000) 

(000) 

1861 

$40,581 

$1,918 

1868 

$33,287 

$1,980 

1862 

40,448 

2,206 

1869 

32,815 

1,896 

1863 

39,497 

2,068 

1870 

31,112 

1,865 

1864 

39,380 

2,435 

1871 

29,280 

1,785 

1865 

37,476 

1,995 

1872 

27,303 

1,706 

1866 

35,622 

1,892 

1873 

25,799 

1,563 

1867 

34,766 

2,257 

1  From  Reports  of  Auditors  General.  The  figures  for  amount  of  the  debt  include 
the  same  items  as  in  the  table  for  1844-1860.  The  interest  payments  also  include 
varying  amounts  paid  on  short-time  loans  from  banks.  Cf.  Tenth  Census,  VII, 
V dilation,  Taxation  and  Public  Indebtedness,  p.  542. 

These  three  tables  show  the  importance  of  the  role  played  by  the 
debt  in  state  finance.  During  the  years  1844  to  1855  the  interest  charge 
absorbed  the  greater  part  of  all  tax  revenues  collected  by  the  common- 
wealth. After  1858  the  reduction  of  the  debt  resulted  in  a  diminution 
of  the  interest  charge  and  made  possible  a  more  liberal  policy  of  expendi- 
ture for  other  purposes.  The  following  table  shows  the  course  of  state 
expenditures  during  the  years  1861  to  1873: 

STATE  EXPENDITURES,  Bt  PURPOSE,  FOR  CERTAIN  YEARS,  1861-18731 
(in  thousands  of  dollars) 


Purpose 

1861 

1865 

1870 

1873 

General  Government  

449 

616 

826 

1,402* 

Military                   ..        

2,359 

382 

36 

86 

Charitable 

154 

329 

9253 

9706 

Educational  

345 

355 

649 

804 

Redemption  of  Loans 

483 

1,904 

1,790 

1,552 

Interest  on  Loans  
AllOther  

1,918 
134 

1,995 
208 

1,865 
344 

1,563 
357 

Total  

5,8422 

5,789 

6,435 

6,734 

1  No  attempt  has  been  made  in  this  tabulation  to  classify  the  payments  from  the 
state  treasury  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  governmental  accounting,  since 


84  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

The  most  significant  facts  brought  out  by  this  table  are  the  reduction 
of  the  interest  charge,  the  large  amounts  devoted  to  the  reduction  of  the 
debt,  the  increase  of  the  cost  of  general  government  by  over  100  per  cent, 
(excluding  the  unusual  item  for  the  constitutional  convention)  and, 
finally,  the  growth  of  expenditures  for  charitable  and  educational  pur- 
poses. These  last  are  largely  subventions.  All  these  increases  indicate 
a  more  liberal  policy  of  state  expenditure. 

In  order  that  the  total  expenditure  might  increase  from  $2,690,000 
in  1850  to  $5,842,000  in  1861  and  to  $6,734,000  in  1873,  while  the  amount 
of  the  debt  was  decreased  nearly  $15,000,000,  revenues  must  have  in- 
creased proportionately.  The  next  step  in  outlining  the  financial  policy 
of  the  state  is,  therefore,  to  discover  the  sources  of  this  revenue  and  to 
ascertain,  if  possible,  the  new  distribution  of  revenue  resources  between 
state  and  localities  that  resulted  from  the  development  of  the  state  system 
of  taxation. 

In  1844  was  passed  the  act  that  laid  the  foundation  of  the  present 
system  of  taxation  in  Pennsylvania.5  This  law  levied  a  direct  state 
tax  upon  real  estate;  upon  certain  personalty,  including  live-stock, 
mortgages,  notes,  money  owed  by  solvent  debtors,  bank  shares,  shares 
in  savings  institutions,  shares  in  corporations,  public  bonds  and  stock, 
excepting  those  of  the  state,  all  household  furniture,  including  gold  and 
silver  plate,  subject  to  an  exemption  of  $300,  and  upon  pleasure  carriages; 
upon  occupations,  professions,  and  trades,  except  that  of  farmer.6  The 
act  further  provided  for  the  assessment  and  collection  of  the  tax  upon 
corporation  shares  directly  by  state  officers.  The  assessment  of  taxes 
upon  real  estate  and  upon  personalty,  other  than  corporation  shares, 
was  entrusted  to  county  officers.7  Other  taxes  levied  by  the  state  in  1844 
were:  taxes  on  bank  dividends;  auction  duties  and  auction  commis- 
sions; license  taxes  on  tavern-keepers,  on  retailers,  on  pedlers  and  on 
brokers;  taxes  on  writs;  a  collateral  inheritance  tax;  and  a  tax  on  certain 

•  Eastman,  Taxation  for  State  Purposes,  p.  xii. 

•  Sec.  32,  Act  29  April,  1844,  P.L.  pp.  497-498. 

7  Sees.  33-41,  Act  29  April,  1844,  P.L.  pp.  498-501. 

adequate  information  for  such  a  classification  is  wanting.  The  figures  of  the  Auditors 
General  have  been  reproduced,  except  that  a  number  of  items  have  been  combined  in 
"Charitable,"  "Educational,"  and  "All  Other." 

2  $31,000  refunded  taxes  have  been  excluded;  otherwise  the  total  is  as  given  by  the 
Auditor  General's  Report. 

1  Includes  $508,000  for  Soldiers'  Orphans'  Schools. 

4  Includes  $411,000  for  the  expenses  of  the  constitutional  convention  of  1872-1873. 

1  Includes  $469,000  for  Soldiers'  Orphans'  Schools. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 


85 


offices.    The  following  table  shows  at  a  glance  the  development  of  new 
taxes,  together  with  the  revenue  received  from  all  sources: 

STATE  REVENUE  RECEIVED   FROM  PRINCIPAL  TAXES,  AND   FROM 

OTHER  SOURCES,  FOR  CERTAIN  YEARS,  1844  to  1873 

(in  thousand  of  dollars)1 


1844 

1850 

1855 

1860 

1863 

1865 

1870 

1873 

Tax  on  real  and  personal 
estate  .        

751 

1,318 

1,721 

1,445 

1,733 

1,959 

7028 

542 

Tax  on  bank  dividends 

47 

154 

345 

227 

228 

206 

Premiums  on  charters  
Tax  on  corporation  stocks.. 
Foreign  insurance  agencies 
Tax  on  loans  
Auction  duties  and  com- 
missions   

1 
52 

92 

89 
137 
3 
119 

63 

11 
274 
4 
140 

73 

15 
276 
20 
130 

53 

16 
439 
42 
148 

54 

91 
1,238 
111 
316 

86 

59 
1,526 
280 
349 

51 

68 
1,704 
353 
688 

14 

Tax  on  tonnage  of  R.  R.s.. 

389 

401 

385 

Annuities  for  right  of  way 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

License  taxes  
Tax  on  brokers  and  private 
bankers  

113 

310 

399 

497 

449 
23 

602 
47 

806 

835 

Tax  on  writs,  etc  
Tax  on  net  earnings  

33 

45 

59 

60 

62 

71 
143 

75 
396 

113 
446 

Tax  on  gross  receipts  

393 

798 

Collateral  inheritance  tax.. 
Tax  on  coal  

22 

102 

118 

147 

187 

294 

341 
251 

328 
336 

Interest  

3892 

342 

Commutation  of  tonnage 
tax,  Penn.  R.  R..  . 

16  14 

3  14 

3604 

3604 

3604 

2304 

All  other  

43 

78 

99 

49 

71 

122 

206 

135 

Total  

1,154 

2,418 

3,414 

3,349 

3,856 

6,045 

6,206 

6,985 

1  From  the  totals  there  have  been  excluded  in  each  year  the  following  items  entered 
by  the  Auditors  General  in  their  Reports:  Sales  of  property,  other  than  land,  including 
securities  and  payments  for  the  public  works,  canal  and  railroad  tolls,  canal  fines  and 
sales  of  old  canal  materials,  loans,  refunds,  and  interdepartmental  receipts  and  pay- 
ments. 

2  Interest  paid  by  the  railroad  companies  that  purchased  the  state  works. 

1  The  state  tax  on  real  estate  was  repealed  in  1866.  See  Sec.  4,  Act  23  Feb.,  1866, 
P.  L.,  p.  83. 

4  This  was  a  special  tax  levied  upon  the  Pennsylvania  R.  R.  Co.  because  it  com- 
peted with  the  state  works.  This  tax  was  later  commuted  for  an  annual  payment  of 
$360,000,  Eastman,  Taxation  for  State  Purposes,  p.  145. 


86  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

During  this  period,  1844-1873,  the  state's  financial  policy  was  con- 
trolled by  two  factors.  From  1844  to  about  1860  the  burden  of  the 
internal  improvement  debt  made  economy  and  restriction  of  expendi- 
tures for  other  purposes  an  absolute  necessity.  Hence  new  subventions 
could  not  develop,  and  those  already  in  existence  were  curtailed  or  pre- 
vented from  increasing.  But  from  1860  to  1873  the  growth  of  corporate 
wealth  made  it  much  easier  for  the  state  to  secure  revenue. 

The  most  significant  fact  in  this  development  of  state  revenues  is  the 
monopolizing  of  the  new  sources  of  revenue  by  the  state.  Banks 
appeared,  and  the  state  promptly  taxed  them,  leaving  their  tangible  pro- 
perty subject  to  local  levy;  corporations  and  public  service  concerns 
came  with  the  development  of  railroads  and  of  the  great  industrial  enter- 
prises, and  the  state  taxed  them.  The  state  also  levied  indirect  taxes, 
including  the  tonnage  tax  and  the  numerous  license  taxes  on  whole- 
salers and  retailers.  These  taxes  were  imposed  not  only  on  the  sellers 
of  alcoholic  liquors  but  also  on  the  vendors  of  general  merchandise,  on 
pedlers,  on  theatres,  circuses  and  places  of  amusements,  on  restaurants 
and  inns,  and  on  brokers. 

The  occasion  for  the  elaboration  of  the  tax  system  seems  to  have  been 
the  heavy  burdens  imposed  by  the  Civil  War,  but,  undoubtedly,  the  need 
for  new  taxes  to  hit  new  forms  of  wealth  was  a  potent  factor  in  the 
development  of  new  duties.  With  the  elaboration  of  the  revenue  system, 
came  also  an  elaboration  of  the  services  performed  by  the  state  and  an 
extension  of  its  subvention  policy.  It  is  undeniable  that  the  principal 
cause  of  the  development  of  new  taxes  was  the  need  for  revenue  to  meet 
the  extraordinary  expenditures  of  the  war  and  to  pay  the  debt;  but  it  is 
also  true  that  the  new  taxes  were  retained  after  the  needs  which  they 
were  created  to  meet  had  been  filled.  In  part  they  were  retained  to 
finance  the  new  services  which  the  state  was  rapidly  developing,  and  in 
part  to  impose  a  heavier  burden  upon  corporate  wealth  which  largely 
escaped  local  taxation.8  The  effect  of  the  changes  in  the  financial  policy 
of  the  state  upon  the  amount  and  character  of  the  state  subventions 
which  was  most  marked  will  be  dealt  with  in  the  succeeding  sections 
of  this  chapter. 

THE  GRANT  IN  AID  TO  COMMON  SCHOOLS 

The  years  1834  to  1844  witnessed  the  beginnings  of  the  common 
school  system.  As  was  pointed  out  in  the  last  chapter,  the  introduction 

8  The  rearrangement  of  the  revenue  system  during  this  period  for  the  purpose  of 
accomplishing  a  better  equalization  of  the  burden  of  taxation  upon  different  forms 
of  wealth  will  be  discussed  in  Chapter  VI. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  87 

of  the  state  system,  involving  free  schools,  taxation  for  the  support  of 
such  schools,  and  non-sectarian  instruction,  was  accomplished  only  in 
the  face  of  bitter  opposition  from  nearly  every  part  of  the  state.  And 
the  successful  inauguration  of  the  system,  crude  and  inadequate  as  it 
was,  depended  very  largely  upon  the  ability  of  the  state  to  make  large 
contributions  to  its  support.  Furthermore,  owing  to  this  opposition, 
the  state  placed  very  liberal  conditions  upon  the  acceptance  of  the  grant, 
and  did  not  attempt  strictly  to  enforce  them.  The  adoption  of  the 
system  was  even  made  optional  for  each  district,  and  the  chief  purpose 
of  the  subvention,  during  the  years  1834  to  1844,  was  to  stimulate  local 
interest  in  the  schools. 

During  the  period  1844  to  1873,  however,  the  more  liberal  policy 
pursued  during  the  first  decade  of  the  system  was  gradually  abandoned, 
and  the  conditions  attaching  to  the  subvention  were  increased  and  more 
strictly  enforced.  In  addition,  after  1848  constant  pressure  was  brought 
to  bear  upon  those  districts  that  had  not  accepted  the  system  to  compel 
them  to  fall  into  line.  The  act  of  18489  made  the  establishment  of  free 
schools  one  of  the  statutory  duties  of  the  local  governments.  From  the 
legal  point  of  view  the  question  of  "free  schools  or  no  free  schools"  was 
definitely  settled  by  that  statute.  It  should  be  noted,  however,  that  a 
few  districts  refused  to  organize,  and  in  1873  in  spite  of  a  special  subsidy 
offered  by  the  state  in  1868  to  districts  opening  schools  for  the  first 
time,  and  in  spite  of  all  that  the  state  superintendent  could  do  to  create  a 
sentiment  in  favor  of  public  schools,  one  district  still  refused  to  obey  the 
mandate  of  the  legislature.10 

The  general  adherence  of  the  people  to  the  schools  having  been  gained, 
the  attention  of  the  state  officers  was  turned,  during  this  period,  to  the 
settlement  of  smaller  yet  vital  problems.  Many  of  these  were  of  a 
technical  nature  and  the  districts  were  often  induced  to  accept  the  solu- 
tions arrived  at  by  state  officials  without  the  necessity  of  using  the  threat 
to  withhold  the  subvention.  This  was  done  in  a  majority  of  cases  by 
means  of  friendly  advice  from  the  office  of  the  state  superintendent.  In 
larger  matters,  such  as  the  length  of  the  school  term,  the  power  of  the 
superintendent  to  withhold  state  aid  was  used  to  compel  uniformity. 
It  has  just  been  said  that  after  1848  the  school  system  was  supposed  to  be 
in  operation  throughout  the  state.  But  in  many  instances  the  districts 
complied  with  the  law  in  only  a  perfunctory  manner.  And,  since  the 
state  was  either  unable  or  unwilling  to  provide  a  large  subvention,  it 

9  Act  11  April,  1848,  P.L.  p.  520. 

10  See  Supt.  of  Common  Schools,  Report  (1873),  p.  xii. 


88 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 


was  many  years  before  it  could  require  the  establishment  of  efficient 
schools. 

The  first  problem,  then,  in  the  improvement  of  the  system,  was  to 
find  the  funds  to  finance  it.  After  the  disaster  which  overtook  state 
finances  during  the  years  1840  to  1844,  the  state  contributed  a  declining 
proportion  of  the  total  cost  of  carrying  on  the  schools.  The  amount 
paid  from  the  state  treasury  in  1837,  $463,750,  remained  the  high  water 
mark  of  the  subvention  for  many  years.11  In  1837  the  districts  reported 
$231,552  levied  for  the  support  of  the  schools,12  or  about  one-half  as 
much  as  the  state  appropriation.  In  1838  as  was  stated  in  Chapter  IV, 
the  legislature  enacted  a  law  which  appropriated  for  school  purposes  one 
dollar  for  each  taxable  inhabitant  of  the  state.13  The  apparent  intent 
of  the  legislature  was  to  provide  for  the  growth  of  the  subvention  at 
something  like  the  same  rate  as  the  increase  of  population.  But  so 
great  was  the  burden  of  the  debt  and  so  limited  were  the  proceeds  of  the 
various  revenue  measures,  that  the  amount  paid  to  the  districts  declined 
absolutely  from  1844  to  1849  and  was  less  in  1860  than  in  1837.  An 
ever  increasing  proportion  of  the  burden  of  supporting  the  schools  was, 
therefore,  thrown  upon  the  district  taxpayers.  The  following  table 
shows  the  course  of  the  state  appropriation  and  of  the  amount  of  taxes 
levied  locally  for  the  support  of  the  system  from  1844  to  1854: 

THE  AMOUNT  OF  THE  STATE  SUBVENTION,  AND  OF  TAXES  LEVIED 

LOCALLY  FOR  THE  SUPPORT  OF  THE  COMMON  SCHOOLS, 

1844  TO  1854  INCLUSIVE14 


Year 

Amt.  of  State  Subvention 

Tax  Levied  Locally 

1844 

$264,520 

$391,340 

1845 

192,813 

370,744 

1846 

186,418 

406,740 

1847 

187,270 

436,728 

1848 

193,036 

501,681 

1849 

182,884 

583,187 

1850 

186,763 

768,422 

1851 

193,005 

914,377 

1852 

190,266 

982,196 

1853 

184,340 

1,021,338 

1854 

156,389 

1,167,119 

11  This  was  the  amount  paid  to  districts  outside  of  Philadelphia,  which  was  not 
a  part  of  the  system  under  the  control  of  the  state  superintendent.    The  general 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  89 

As  may  be  seen  at  a  glance,  the  local  levy  of  taxes  for  the  support  of 
the  common  schools  increased  steadily  throughout  the  eleven  years  under 
consideration.  The  subvention,  on  the  other  hand,  declined  relatively 
and  absolutely.  It  was  more  than  $100,000  smaller  in  1854  than  in 
1844.  Furthermore,  the  payments  from  the  state  treasury,  which  had 
amounted  to  about  two- thirds  as  much  as  the  local  levies  in  1844,  were 
only  about  one-eighth  as  great  in  1854. 

It  must  not  be  supposed,  however,  that  this  was  a  period  of  famine 
for  all  interests  dependent  upon  the  state  treasury.  For  the  contractors 
who  extended  and  repaired  the  public  works  it  was  rather  one  of  feasting 
and  abundance.15  Nor  did  expenditures  for  the  maintenance  of  state 
officers  give  evidence  of  a  policy  of  strict  economy.  In  1844  the  Auditor 
General  reported  $254,453  expenditures  for  general  government15  and 
in  1854  an  outgo  of  $290,606  for  the  same  purpose.17  As  was  but  natural 
in  American  politics  of  those  days,  the  legislature  economized  first  on 
expenditures  that  were  politically  least  useful. 

The  effect  of  the  parsimony  of  the  legislature  upon  the  school  system 
was  the  subject  for  annual  lamentation  by  the  superintendent  of  common 
schools.  As  early  as  1845  that  officer  pointed  out  that  curtailing  the 
appropriation  had  resulted  in  a  shorter  average  school  term  for  all 
districts,18  and  in  1849  he  came  forward  with  a  proposal  for  a  state 
inheritance  tax  upon  direct  heirs,  which,  in  his  opinion,  would  have 
produced  $1,250,000,  or  enough  completely  to  finance  the  school  sys- 


school  laws  applied  to  Philadelphia,  but  its  school  officers  were  not  required  to  report 
to  the  state  superintendent. 

12  Supt.  of  Common  Schools,  Report  (1861),  p.  240. 

13  Act  12  April,  1838,  P.L.  p.  333. 

14  Supt.  of  Common  Schools,  Report  (1861),  p.  240.    These  data  do  not  include 
the  financial  statements  of  the  schools  in  Philadelphia,  which  did  not  report  to  the  state 
superintendent.     The  figures  for  amounts  paid  by  state  appropriation  do  not  agree 
with  the  figures  given  by  the  state  auditor  general  and  by  the  state  treasurer,  since 
the  fiscal  year  of  the  state  began  Dec.  1,  while  that  of  the  school  system  began  the 
first  Monday  in  June. 

18  See  Bishop,  Ch.  V,  especially  pp.  236-242. 

19  Report  (1844),  p.  23. 

17  Report  (1854),  p.  39.  See  also  the  discussion  in  the  House  of  Representatives 
on  11  Feb.,  1854,  in  which  the  history  of  the  contingent  expenses  appropriation  was 
inadvertently  aired.  Daily  Legislative  Union,  I,  p.  87. 


90  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

tern.19  But  the  legislature  was  deaf  to  his  recommendations  and  no 
such  tax  was  imposed. 

Throughout  the  state,  not  only  in  the  legislature,  but  also  among  the 
the  people  in  the  districts,  interest  in  the  schools  seems  to  have  languished. 
This  indifference  was  attributed  to  a  variety  of  causes.  Well-trained 
teachers  were  lacking;  there  was  no  suitable  agency  for  determining  the 
fitness  of  applicants  for  teaching  positions;20  the  state  appropriation 
was  inadequate;  administration  of  the  schools  was  too  greatly  decentral- 
ized; and,  finally,  the  legal  provisions  for  levying,  collecting,  and  account- 
for  school  revenues  were  awkward  and  inadequate.21 

The  failure  of  the  state  to  contribute  amply  to  the  support  of  the  sys- 
tem was  partly  due  to  financial  difficulties  and  partly  to  indifference.  The 
same  causes  restricted  local  contributions.  The  financial  difficulties  of 
the  local  governments  were  partly  artificial  and  partly  real.  Among 
the  artificial  difficulties  was  the  clumsy  law  of  1836,  which  fixed  the 
maximum  tax  that  could  be  levied  by  the  directors  at  three  times  the 
amount  of  the  district's  proportion  of  the  state  subvention  for  the  year 
of  1836.  If  larger  revenues  were  needed,  resort  had  to  be  made  to  a 
meeting  of  the  voters  of  the  district,  who  alone  had  power  to  assent  to 
taxes  in  excess  of  the  maximum  of  three  times  the  state  subvention. 

Other  provisions  of  the  law  of  1836  also  proved  vexatious  and  cumber- 
some in  their  operation.22  Concrete  evidence  of  the  need  for  more  liberal 
laws  was  given  by  the  state  superintendent  in  1848.  In  that  year's  re- 
port appeared  a  list  of  more  than  a  dozen  districts,  scattered  throughout 
the  state,  that  were  not  entitled  to  receive  more  than  $10  annually 
from  the  state  subvention.  The  sum  of  the  subvention  and  the  tax  that 
the  directors  of  these  districts  could  legally  levy  was  less  than  $100, 
which  was  obviously  insufficient  to  pay  the  wages  of  a  competent  teacher 
for  an  adequate  term,  to  say  nothing  of  defraying  the  cost  of  fuel,  repairs, 
and  other  maintenance  charges.23  This  difficulty  was  removed  by  the 
act  of  1849,  which  fixed  the  maximum  tax  that  the  directors  could 
levy  at  an  amount  sufficient,  with  the  aid  of  the  subvention,  to  keep  the 
schools  in  operation  ten  months  during  the  year.24 

19  Report  (1849),  p.  13. 

20  The  president  of  the  board  of  directors,  or  some  other  administrative  officer 
examined  the  applicant. 

21  See  Supt.  of  Common  Schools,  Report  (1847),  pp.  5,  7;  Report  (1850),  p.  6; 
Report  (1856,  p.  12;  Report  (1857),  p.  43. 

22  Supt.  of  Common  Schools,  Report  (1845),  pp.  6-7. 


*  Act  7  April,  1849,  P.L.  p.  446. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  91 

But  the  most  real  financial  difficulty  that  embarrassed  the  districts 
was  the  burden  of  state  taxation  imposed  upon  real  and  personal  property 
by  the  Act  of  1844.  The  school  tax  was  levied  upon  practically  the  same 
bases  and  constituted  an  additional  burden.  Hence  the  school  system 
"was  left  to  depend  for  a  feeble  existence  on  the  remnant  of  that  property 
which  public  exaction  had  left  in  the  pockets  of  the  people."25  It 
was  not  until  the  state  tax  upon  real  estate  was  repealed,  in  1866,  that 
this  difficulty  was  removed.23 

During  the  years  1844  to  1854,  as  has  been  pointed  out,  the  state 
subvention  decreased,  and,  therefore,  no  aid  in  improving  the  financial 
condition  of  the  schools  was  secured  from  the  state  treasury.  Attempts 
to  gain  larger  local  support  were,  however,  successful.  The  first  method 
of  obtaining  better  local  support  was  to  make  the  conditions  for  partici- 
pation in  the  state  subvention  more  difficult.  In  the  act  of  1848,  and 
again  in  the  codifying  act  of  1849,  it  was  provided  that  before  any  dis- 
trict could  participate  in  the  subvention  it  must  have  levied  taxes 
sufficient,  in  conjunction  with  its  share  of  the  subvention,  to  keep  its 
schools  in  operation  at  least  four  months  during  the  school  year.27 
But  the  districts  revolted  against  this  requirement,  accompanied  as 
it  was  by  no  declaration  or  even  intimation  that  the  state  would  bear 
a  part  of  the  increased  cost,  and  the  prescribed  term  was  reduced  to 
three  months  in  1850.28  In  1854  local  sentiment  in  favor  of  a  longer 
minimum  term  was  strong  enough  to  permit  the  re-enactment  of  the 
four  months'  requirement.29  The  minimum  term  remained  four  months 
until  the  law  of  1872  increased  it  to  five  months.30 

Of  course  the  requirement  for  the  minimum  term  was  never  increased 
until  the  majority  of  the  schools  were  annually  in  operation  for  as  long, 
or  a  longer  term  than  the  new  minimum  contemplated.  When  the 
minimum  was  set  at  five  months,  in  1872,  the  average  length  of  term  for 

28  Supt.  of  Common  Schools,  Report  (1849),  p.  13. 

26  Act  23  Feb.,  1866,  P.L.  p.  83. 

27  See  Act  7  April,  1849,  P.L.  p.  446. 

28  Act  6  May,  1850,  P.L.  p.  703. 

29  Act  8  May,  1854,  P.L.  pp.  623-624. 

30  Act  9  April,  1872,  P.  L.  p.  46.    This  act  made  an  exception  for  those  districts 
in  which  local  taxes  were  already  imposed  at  the  maximum  rate  permitted  by  law 
without  securing  enough  revenue  to  keep  the  schools  open  more  than  four  months. 


92 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 


all  districts  had  been  in  excess  of  that  minimum  for  many  years.    The 
purpose  of  the  requirement  was  to  spur  on  the  laggards.31 

The  effect  of  the  law  making  the  adoption  of  the  system  compulsory, 
and  of  the  awakened  interest  in  the  schools,  is  seen  in  the  great  increase 
of  local  revenues  raised  for  their  support  after  1854. 


FINANCES  OF  THE  COMMON  SCHOOL  SYSTEM, 
PHILADELPHIA  EXCLUDED,  1855  to  1873* 


Year2 

Expenditures  for  Common  Schools3 

State  Subvention 

Local  School 
Taxes 

%of 

For  In- 

For 

For  Fuel 

Amount 

%  of  Total 

Total 

struc- 

School- 

and   Con- 

Total4 

of  Sub- 

Com. School 

Amt. 

Com. 

tion 

houses 

tingencies 

vention 

Expendi- 

Collected 

School 

tures5 

Expen- 

(000) 

(000) 

(000) 

(000) 

(000) 

(000) 

ditures8 

1855 

$1,042 

$   266 

$    110 

$1,418 

$160 

11.3 

$1,128 

79.5 

1856 

1,146 

332 

141 

1,618 

164 

10.1 

1,372 

84.8 

1857 

1,137 

444 

173 

1,754 

165 

9.4 

1,535 

87.5 

1858 

1,326 

454 

163 

1,943 

189 

9.7 

1,555 

80.0 

1859 

1,404 

531 

168 

2,103 

187 

8.9 

1,621 

77.1 

1860 

1,442 

448 

210 

2,201 

194 

8.8 

1,639 

74.5 

1861 

1,436 

496 

223 

2,156 

210 

9.8 

1,783 

82.7 

1862 

1,367 

356 

232 

1,955 

211 

10.7 

1,756 

89.8 

1863 

1,498 

395 

251 

2,143 

212 

9.9 

1,797 

83.9 

1864 

1,699 

489 

309 

2,396 

216 

9.0 

2,016 

83.7 

1865 

1,991 

374 

410 

2,775 

210 

7.5 

2,318 

83.7 

1866 

2,212 

597 

458 

3,267 

233 

7.1 

2,802 

85.8 

1867 

2,483 

985 

601 

4,069 

240 

5.9 

3,489 

85.7 

1868 

2,619 

1,358 

642 

4,619 

219 

4.8 

4,314 

93.4 

1869 

2,819 

1,195 

728 

5,542 

308 

5.5 

5,068 

91.4 

1870 

3,011 

2,560 

808 

6,379 

321 

5.0 

5,685 

89.1 

1871 

3,183 

3,006 

799 

6,989 

318 

4.5 

6,023 

86.2 

1872 

3,221 

2,537 

864 

6,471 

429 

6.6 

5,439 

84.1 

1873 

3,425 

1,478 

1,7566 

6,659 

475 

7.1 

6,672 

100.2 

1  Supt.  of  Common  Schools,  Report  (1873),  p.  338. 

2  The  fiscal  year  of  the  school  system  began  the  first  Monday  in  June. 

3  The  reader  should  not  attribute  a  great  degree  of  accuracy  to  these  data.    They 
were  compiled  by  the  superintendent  from  the  reports  of  more  than  a  thousand  dis- 

31  For  evidence  that  the  subvention  served  the  purpose  and  that  its  function 
was  well  recognized,  see  the  statement  of  Mr.  Lear,  in  Convention  to  Amend  the  Con- 
stitution, (1872-1873),  Debates,  II,  p.  435,  col.  2. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  93 

Some  striking  facts  are  brought  out  by  this  table.  It  is  quite  appar- 
ent that  the  increase  in  local  taxation  could  not  have  been  principally 
the  result  of  encouragement  given  by  the  state  grant,  since  the  augmen- 
tation began  before  the  state  appropriation  showed  an  upward  tendency. 
Thus  the  increase  of  more  than  $400,000  in  local  revenues  from  1855  to 
1857  came  at  a  time  when  the  amount  of  the  subvention  was  at  about 
the  lowest  point  in  its  history.  Also  the  expenditure  for  building  pur- 
poses made  startling  increases  during  the  years  1865  to  1868,  when  the 
state  appropriation  was  nearly  at  a  standstill.  The  fact  that  the  pro- 
portion of  the  total  expenditure  contributed  by  the  state  decreased 
steadily,  with  the  exception  of  the  last  two  years,  also  indicates  that 
the  subvention  was  not  the  primary  cause  of  the  great  outpouring  of 
local  resources  in  support  of  free  schools. 

It  is  noticeable  that  after  the  state  tax  on  real  estate  was  removed, 
in  1866,  the  local  levies  for  school  purposes  increased  very  rapidly.  But 
the  period  of  large  annual  additions  had  begun  somewhat  earlier.  Hence, 
it  can  hardly  be  said  that  the  repeal  of  the  real  estate  tax  was  a  controlling 
factor  in  the  growth  of  local  taxation. 

By  way  of  summary  we  may  note  the  points  brought  out  by  this  dis- 
cussion of  the  finances  of  the  school  system  from  1844  to  1873.  (1)  The 
failure  of  the  state  to  contribute  generously  to  the  support  of  the  schools 
was  partly  responsible  for  the  lack  of  public  interest  from  1844  to  1850; 
but,  (2)  the  revival  of  interest  following  that  year,  and  the  great  increase 
in  local  taxation  which  occurred  in  the  'sixties,  was  probably  not  due  so 
much  to  state  aid  as  to  reforms  in  the  management  of  the  schools  and 
to  the  development  among  the  people  of  an  appreciation  of  the  value 
of  public  education.  (3)  The  subvention  was  useful,  however,  in  com- 
pelling backward  districts  to  contribute  more  freely  to  the  support  of 
their  schools. 

The  second  problem  that  was  brought  up  for  solution  during  this  period 
was  how  to  secure  financial  accountability  for  district  officers.  Local  audit 

tricts  whose  officers,  in  probably  a  majority  of  cases,  did  not  keep  accurate  accounts. 
The  table  is  given  for  the  purpose  of  showing  general  tendencies. 

4  These  totals  are  given  as  reported  by  the  Superintendent. 

5  The  figures  given  in  these  two  columns  do  not,  of  course,  total  100  per  cent,  since 
the  total  of  revenue  receipts  and  the  total  of  expenditures  were  not  always  equal. 
Also  considerable  amounts  were  borrowed,  especially  for  the  purpose  of  building  school 
houses. 

•This  amount  includes  "fees  of  collectors  and  treasurers,  salaries  to  secretaries, 
debt  and  interest,  and  all  other  expenses,"  apparently  for  the  first  time.  See  Report 
(1873),  p.  338. 


94  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

of  accounting  for  funds  entrusted  to  the  district  treasurer  was  required 
by  all  the  earlier  laws  as  well  as  by  the  acts  of  184932  and  1854.33  But 
the  state  had  no  agency  for  determining  whether  the  funds  it  appropriated 
for  the  support  of  the  schools  were  faithfully  applied.  A  very  feeble 
attempt  was  made  to  guarantee  the  central  government  against  misap- 
plication of  funds  and  against  illegal  participation  in  the  subvention  by 
districts  that  did  not  live  up  to  the  requirements  of  the  law  by  requiring 
detailed  reports  to  the  state  superintendent.  These  reports,  which  were 
supposed  to  cover  the  financial  management  of  the  schools,  were  re- 
quired to  be  in  the  hands  of  the  superintendent  before  any  district 
could  participate  in  the  state  grant.  But,  by  the  acts  of  1836  and  1849, 
the  superintendent  was  compelled  to  draw  his  warrant  for  the  payment 
of  the  subvention  to  any  district  whose  directors  made  the  required 
reports  and  forwarded  to  him  a  certificate  showing  that  they  had  levied 
the  minimum  tax.34  The  provisions  of  the  law  were  mandatory  and  left 
the  superintendent  no  discretion. 

Unfortunately,  the  superintendent  had  no  means  of  knowing  whether 
the  reports  were  reliable,  whether  the  taxes  were  actually  collected,  or 
whether  the  amount  received  from  the  state  was  actually  used  for  school 
purposes.  This  lack  of  central  control  was  a  standing  and  open  invita- 
tion to  fraud  and  deception,  and  district  officers  took  advantage  of  it. 
In  some  districts  the  boards  of  directors  levied  the  minimum  taxes  and 
forwarded  the  certificate  to  the  state  superintendent,  who  was  thereby 
required  to  provide  for  the  payment  of  the  district's  quota  of  state  aid. 
Before  the  taxes  were  collected,  however,  the  warrant  was  withdrawn 
from  the  local  collector,  and  no  school  taxes  were  really  levied.  The 
money  received  from  the  state  was  then  used  to  keep  the  schools  open 
for  a  short  time.35  How  frequently  this  ruse  was  worked  we  cannot,  of 
course,  determine.  The  state  superintendent  stated  that  such  practices 
were  "not  common."  He  was  quite  certain,  however,  that  the  reports 
submitted  by  the  boards  of  directors  were  often  garbled,  or  "faked," 
and  still  of  tener,  carelessly  compiled. 

"More  fraudulent  practices  were  sometimes  discovered.  In  numer- 
ous instances,  and  in  many  school  districts,  the  tax  duplicate  was  with- 
drawn from  the  hands  of  the  collector  as  soon  as  the  warrant  for  the 
share  of  the  district  in  the  state  appropriation  was  received  and  cashed, 

32  Sec.  14,  Act  7  April,  1849,  P.L.  p.  443. 

33  Sec.  16,  Act  8  May,  1854,  P.L.  p.  620. 

34  See  Sec.  30,  Act  7  April,  1849,  P.L.  pp.  447-448. 
36  Supt.  of  Common  Schools,  Report  (1849),  p.  3. 


THE  SUBVENTION  TN  PENNSYLVANIA  95 

and  no  tax  collected,  no  teachers  employed,  no  schools  opened,  and  the 
money  appropriated  by  the  state  to  sustain  a  languishing  system  of  pub- 
lic instruction  by  common  schools,  applied  to  the  repair  of  the  township 
roads  and  highways,  and  other  similar  illegal  purposes;  or  what  is  in- 
finitely worse,  transferred  to  the  pockets  of  the  directors  themselves  as 
compensation  for  their  official  services.  Warrants  were  sometimes 
obtained  on  vouchers  manufactured  for  the  purpose,  and  the  money 
drawn  from  the  treasury  applied  to  the  benefit  of  parties  having  no 
official  connection  with  the  schools."  Or,  "Inadequate  and  often  no 
security  was  required  of  the  treasurers  and  collectors,  and  as  a  conse- 
quence, accounts  were  carelessly  kept,  and  defalcations  by  no  means 
uncommon,  and  money  which  should  have  been  devoted  to  the  education 
of  the  pupil,  used  for  private  speculation,  while  dishonored  school  orders 
were  hawked  about  the  neighborhood  in  fruitless  search  of  payment  or 
barter.  The  payment  of  large  fees  to  justices  of  the  peace  for  legal  ad- 
vice and  the  monopolizing  of  the  school  fund  by  the  directors  in  liberal 
contracts  with  themselves  to  build  and  repair  schoolhouses  .  .  .  pre- 
sents still  another  phase  of  these  financial  embarrassments.  "36 

On  the  whole,  the  fact  that  in  two  public  reports,  separated  by  six 
years,  considerable  space  is  given  to  the  misapplication  of  the  state 
subvention  is  good  evidence  that  such  practices  did  exist.  The 
record  of  these  cases  of  petty  graft  is  important  in  one  respect 
only.  It  is  not  surprising  that  public  morality  was  such  that 
graft  was  connived  at  by  the  people  in  these  districts.  It  is,  however, 
important  to  observe  that  the  condition  which  made  graft  and  misap- 
plication of  funds  possible  was  the  lack  of  proper  central  control  of  the 
service  aided.  After  1854,  when  a  more  stringent  law  was  passed,  and  the 
office  of  county  superintendent  created,  such  irregularities  were  probably 
rare;  but  there  is  some  evidence  of  their  having  persisted  after  that  date. 
Thus,  in  1873,  the  state  superintendent  laments  that  "it  is  painful  to 
admit  that  somewhat  of  the  recklessness,  if  not  dishonesty,  that  too  often 
characterizes  the  holding  of  public  moneys  in  these  times,  is  chargeable 
now  and  then  against  those  who  are  the  chosen  guardians  of  the 
education  of  the  children  of  the  Commonwealth."37  By  the  law  of 
1854,  the  president  of  the  local  school  board  was  required  to  make  detailed 
reports  to  the  county  superintendent  who  in  turn  reported  to  the  state 
superintendent.  This  provision  must  have  exercised  a  salutary  in- 

*  Supt.  of  Common  Schools,  Report  (1855),  p.  6. 
»7  Report  (1873),  p.  xi. 


96  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

fluence  for  honesty  upon  the  local  officers,  since  the  county  superinten- 
dent was  too  closely  associated  with  local  affairs  to  be  deceived  in  the 
case  of  large  frauds. 

Thus,  after  twenty  years  of  operation,  the  subvention  to  common 
schools  was  finally  safeguarded  against  misapplication  and  fraud.  The 
principle  that  when  the  state  makes  a  subvention  it  must  also  take 
precautions  to  prevent  such  abuses  as  have  just  been  enumerated  is, 
and  will  be,  of  universal  application  as  long  as  dishonest  men  can  be 
elected  to  office.  If  the  state  appropriates  money  it  must  see  to  it 
that  the  money  is  honestly  used.  This  principle  was  early  discovered 
in  the  case  of  the  common  school  subvention,  and  tardy  action  was  taken 
to  mitigate  abuses  in  1854.  But  so  narrow  is  the  range  of  vision  of  the 
average  member  of  the  General  Assembly  that  only  in  recent  years  has 
it  been  recognized  that  a  strict  accounting  should  be  required  of  private 
charities  that  receive  public  assistance.  At  present  (1917)  no  effective 
accounting  is  required  of  those  institutions. 

Another  salutary  provision  of  the  law  of  1854  required  that  before 
the  subvention  should  be  paid  the  president  of  the  board  of  directors 
must  have  certified  that  the  schools  had  already  been  in  operation  four 
months  during  that  school  year.  Failure  to  make  reports  to  the  state 
superintendent  was,  as  has  been  mentioned,  cause  for  withholding  the 
subvention.  Delay  in  making  the  report  usually  resulted  in  nothing 
more  serious  than  delay  in  payment,  and  the  reports  of  the  superinten- 
dent from  1860  to  1873  practically  all  contained  lists  of  districts  which 
were  supposed  to  be  entitled  to  the  subvention,  but  which  had  not  yet 
made  satisfactory  annual  reports.38 

A  third  important  problem  of  this  period  was  that  of  obtaining  com- 
petent teachers.  Reports  on  the  school  system  and  other  official  docu- 
ments contain  many  references  to  the  difficulty  of  finding  persons  com- 
petent to  give  instruction  in  the  elementary  subjects.  This  problem  was 
partially  solved  by  the  establishment  of  the  normal  schools  under  the 
act  of  1857.  The  method  employed  by  the  state  to  induce  private  cor- 
porations to  develop  those  institutions  will  be  treated  in  the  following 
section. 

To  provide  adequate  professional  training  for  teachers  does  not,  of 
course,  insure  efficient  instruction.  It  is  also  necessary  to  require  the 
districts  to  employ  competent  and  well-trained  teachers  and  to  provide 
these  teachers  with  good  mechanical  equipment.  In  the  main,  the  state 
did  not  interfere  directly  with  the  local  administration  with  respect  to 

38  See,  for  example,  Report  (1868),  p.  379 ;  Report  (1873),  pp.  339-340. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  97 

equipment.  In  some  instances  districts  were  given  special  minor  con- 
cessions for  buildings,  but  no  restrictions  were  placed  upon  the  type  of 
building  constructed. 

The  act  of  1854  did,  however,  provide  for  very  effectual  interference 
with  local  autonomy  in  the  selection  of  teachers.  Previous  to  that  date, 
the  district  officers  were  the  sole  judges  of  whether  an  applicant  was 
qualified  to  teach  in  their  schools.  The  law  of  1854  changed  this  con- 
dition by  requiring  that  teachers  should  be  employed  who  were  competent 
to  give  instruction  in  certain  elementary  subjects  and  made  the  county 
superintendent  the  judge  of  their  competence.  If  any  board  of  directors 
continued  to  employ  teachers  who  had  failed  to  meet  the  approval  of  the 
superintendent,  they  thereby  forfeited  their  quota  of  the  state  subven- 
tion for  that  year.39 

An  examination  of  the  reports  of  the  state  superintendent  reveals 
only  a  small  number  of  cases  in  which  the  subvention  had  been  forfeited 
for  this  cause.40  But  the  number  of  districts  that  were  thus  disciplined 
does  not  prove  or  disprove  the  efficacy  of  the  provision,  any  more  than 
the  number  of  convictions  for  burglary  proves  or  disproves  the  vigilance 
of  the  police  in  guarding  property.  Competent,  unprejudiced,  contem- 
poraneous opinion  as  to  the  effect  of  the  provision  is  meagre.  Perhaps 
the  best  is  a  statement  in  debate  in  the  Constitutional  Convention  of 
1872-73  to  the  effect  that  were  it  not  for  the  power  of  the  central  authori- 
ties to  withhold  the  subvention,  directors  would  often  employ  teachers 
who  were  not  well  qualified.41  No  single  argument  was  used  more  fre- 
quently in  this  convention  to  support  the  demand  for  an  article  fixing 
a  minimum  subvention  than  the  statement  that  by  means  of  such  a  sub- 
vention the  central  authorities  had  been  able  to  coerce  the  district  officers 
into  observance  of  the  law  and  to  induce  backward  districts  to  make 
needed  improvements  in  their  schools.  To  insure  the  continuance  of 
this  advantage  several  of  the  delegates  asserted  that  the  subvention 
should  be  permanent  and  as  large  as  the  state  could  afford  to  pay.42 
Wickersham  also  puts  the  same  argument  tersely  when  he  writes  that 
the  state  appropriation  had  "  always  been  a  lever  to  overcome  obstruc- 
tions blocking  the  way,  and  to  lift  the  system  from  a  lower  to  a  higher 

39  Act  8  May,  1854,  P.L.  pp.  625-628. 

40  See  Report  (1865),  p.  298;  Report  (1867),  p.  367-368  for  typical  statements. 

41  By  Mr.  Mann,  Convention  to  Amend  the  Constitution  (1872-1873),  Debates, 
II,  p.  437,  col.  1. 

42  See  speeches  of  Darlington,  Mann,  Harry  White  Lear,  idem,  pp.  419ff. 


98  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

plane.  "43  Perhaps  the  best  short  statement  of  this  function  of  the  sub- 
vention is  to  be  found  in  the  state  superintendent's  report  for  1848,  which 
characterized  it  as  "a  check  to  injustice,  an  excitement  to  apathy,  and  a 
reward  for  well  doing.  "44 

This  is  what  the  ideal  subvention  should  do,  but,  as  we  have  seen,  at 
the  very  time  this  officer  was  writing  directors  were  misapplying  funds, 
and  the  people  seemed  indifferent  to  the  success  or  failure  of  the  schools. 
It  remains  to  show  that  the  method  employed  for  distributing  the  grant 
was  not  calculated  always  to  reward  well  doing  and  to  punish  neglect 
and  incompetence. 

Whether  a  subvention  will  destroy  apathy  and  excite  local  authorities 
to  zealous  performance  o\  their  duties,  depends,  of  course,  upon  whether 
the  grant  is  made  a  reward  for  well  doing  and  a  whip  to  be  held  over  the 
heads  of  the  careless  and  inefficient.  If  the  subvention  is  paid  regardless 
of  the  standard  of  performance  maintained  in  the  service  aided,  it  may 
afford  a  welcome  relief  from  local  taxation  and  may  servet  o  equalize  the 
burden  of  taxation,  but  it  is  more  likely  to  pauperize  the  local  govern- 
ments and  to  make  them  indifferent  than  to  stimulate  them  to  greater 
activity.  Pennsylvania  did  not,  during  this  period,  arrive  at  a  complete 
solution  of  the  problem  of  making  the  grant  to  common  schools  a  spur 
to  activity  and  a  reward  for  well-doing.  This  was  due,  in  the  first  place, 
to  the  failure  to  prescribe  stringent  regulations  for  districts  receiving  the 
subvention.  Of  course,  each  district  was  required  to  keep  its  schools  in 
operation  for  a  minimum  term  in  each  year  and  to  employ  teachers 
deemed  competent  by  the  county  superintendent,  and  to  make  reports  to 
the  state  superintendent.  But  there  were  no  requirements  as  to  mech- 
anical equipment,  curriculum,45  wages  paid  teachers,  or  the  sanitation 
of  school  houses. 

In  distributing  the  subvention  the  legislators  seem  to  have  consulted 
the  parable  of  the  talents,  for  in  its  workings  the  method  of  distribution 
gave  large  subventions  to  the  more  populous  and  wealthier  districts  and 
small  ones  to  the  sparsely  settled,  poorer  communities.  The  earlier 
laws  provided  that  the  subvention  should  be  divided  among  the  counties 
in  accordance  with  the  number  of  taxables  enumerated  triennially  by 
the  local  tax  authorities.  The  quota  going  to  each  county  was  then 
divided  among  the  districts  in  accordance  with  the  number  of  taxable 

«  P.  343. 

"Report  (IMS),  p.  11. 

46  Except  a  meagre  one  applied  in  1854. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  99 

residents  in  each.46  The  act  of  1836  provided  for  the  distribution  of  the 
state  subvention  directly  to  the  districts  in  proportion  to  the  number  of 
taxables  resident  in  each.47  This  method  was  maintained  throughout 
the  period  under  consideration. 

In  1863  the  legislature  attempted  to  change  the  method  of  distribu- 
tion and  enacted  that  thereafter  the  grant  should  be  distributed  to  each 
district  "in  proportion  to  the  number  of  pupils  attending  the  school 
therein.  .  .  ,"48  But  the  state  superintendent  found  it  inadvisable  to 
make  the  distribution  on  the  basis  prescribed  by  the  law.  In  the  first 
place,  the  terms  of  the  act  were  indefinite.  What  did  "the  number  of 
pupils  attending  the  schools"  mean?  Was  it  the  total  number  enrolled 
during  the  school  year?  Or  was  it  the  average  attendance?  If  the  latter, 
how  should  the  average  be  computed?  But  had  the  law  defined  accurate- 
ly the  basis  for  distribution,  the  plan  would  have  been  unworkable,  in 
the  opinion  of  the  superintendent,  because  the  reports  received  from  the 
districts  were  so  unreliable  that  any  distribution  based  thereon  would 
have  been  likely  to  work  great  injustice.49  Because  of  the  objections  to 
the  new  scheme  the  superintendent  did  not  obey  the  law,  and  no  distri- 
bution was  made  for  the  year  ending  June,  1864,50  until  the  legislature 
re-enacted  the  old  provision  for  distribution  according  to  taxables.51 

It  must  not  be  assumed  that  the  old  method  of  apportioning  the  state 
appropriation  was  reinstated  because  it  gave  satisfaction.  On  the  con- 
trary, both  state  and  local  officials  were  well  aware  of  its  imperfections, 
and  many  were  the  voices  raised  against  it.  In  1863  the  state  super- 
intendent showed  at  length  how  utterly  inadequate  and  unjust  it  was. 
The  following  table,  which  gives  data  concerning  two  of  the  wealthier 
and  more  populous,  and  two  of  the  poorer  and  more  sparsely  settled 

48  See  Sec.  19,  Act  1  April,  1834,  P.L.  p.  177.  The  term  "taxable"  is  synonomous 
with  "taxable  inhabitant  of  the  district."  See  Act  15  April,  1834, P.L. p. 512,  which 
includes  the  persons  paying  taxes  on  real  estate  and  on  certain  enumerated  kinds  of 
personal  estate,  and  all  holders  of  taxable  offices,  posts  of  profit,  professions,  trades 
and  occupations  and  all  single  freemen  above  the  age  of  twenty-one  years  who  did 
not  follow  any  occupation  or  calling.  "Who  is  a  taxable  inhabitant?  Clearly,  a 
taxable  is  one  who  is,  or  who  may  lawfully  be,  taxed. "  In  re  Proceedings  for  Approval 
of  Ordinance  of  the  City  of  Chester,  etc.,  174  Pa.  180  (1896). 

47  Act  13  June,  1836,  P.L.  p.  529. 

48  Act  14  April,  1863,  P.L.  p.  365. 

49  Supt.  of  Common  Schools,  Report  (1863),  pp.  xv-xvi. 
80  Idem,  (1864),  p.  41. 

el  Act  17  March,  1864,  P.L.  p.  23. 


100 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 


counties,  shows  concretely  the  objections  to  the  basis  of  distribution 
employed. 

THE  BURDEN  OF  SCHOOL  TAXES,  THE  DISTRIBUTION  OF  THE  STATE 

SUBVENTION,  AND  THE  EXPENDITURE  PER  SCHOLAR 

FOR  FOUR  COUNTIES,  AND  FOR  THE  STATE,  18651 


County 

Tax  levied 
(mills  per  dollar) 

Tax  Collected 
per  scholar 
in  attendance 

No.  of  taxa- 
bles  per 
school 

Subvention 
per  school 

Subvention 
per  scholar 
in  attendance 

Buildings 

School 
pur- 
poses 

Lancaster.... 
Potter 

3.08 
10.40 
3.45 
9.41 
5.89 

.90 
7.15 
1.86 
7.00 
3.63 

$  6.74 
6.45 
13.08 
4.63 

5.84 

61.7 
24.8 
70.0 
21.6 

$23.00 
9.45 

26.58 
7.58 
16.27 

$0.66 
0.49 
0.77 
0.37 
0.54 

Delaware.... 
Sullivan  
Entire  state 

1  Supt.  of  Common  Schools,  Report  (1865),  Tabular  Statement,  pp.  288-289,  and 
p.  22. 

While  the  reports  from  which  these  data  are  compiled  are  not  strictly 
accurate,  the  results  are  sufficiently  dependable  to  enable  us  to  make 
certain  general  observations.  It  is  apparent  that  the  denser  population 
of  Lancaster  and  Delaware  enabled  each  district  within  those  counties 
to  draw  a  much  larger  subvention  than  was  possible  for  those  of  Potter 
and  Sullivan  counties.  Hence  the  amount  of  the  subvention  per  school 
was  much  larger  in  the  former  two  counties.  Of  course,  since  each  school 
also  enrolled  more  pupils  in  Lancaster  and  in  Delaware  counties,  the  cost 
of  operating  was  greater;  but  not  greater  in  proportion  to  the  number  of 
children,  since  the  cost  of  conducting  a  public  school  does  not  increase 
in  the  same  ratio  as  the  number  of  children  in  attendance.  To  distri- 
bute the  subvention  according  to  taxable  inhabitants  is  to  give  according 
to  ability  and  not  according  to  need. 

Again,  it  is  apparent  that  although  the  burden  of  taxation,  as  shown 
by  the  tax  rates,  was  much  heavier  in  Potter  and  in  Sullivan  counties, 
the  school  revenue  per  child  accruing  from  these  taxes  was  less  than  in 
Lancaster  and  in  Delaware  counties.  Large  subventions  were  accom- 
panied by  low  tax  rates  and  light  school  burdens,  while  small  subven- 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN 


tions  were  the  reward  of  heavy  taxation  and  great  exertion  to  sustain 
the  system.52 

It  is  not  probable  that  a  better  basis  for  distribution  than  that  of  the 
number  of  taxables  was  available  at  the  time  the  school  system  was  put 
into  operation.  At  that  time  no  record  was  kept  of  the  number  of 
children  of  school  age  in  each  district,  while  the  number  of  taxable  inhabi- 
tants was  readily  ascertained  by  reference  to  the  assessors'  lists.  Fur- 
thermore, the  number  of  taxables  was  undoubtedly  a  fair  index  of  the 
population  of  the  districts,  and  it  may  be  assumed  that  those  who  wrote 
the  laws  of  1834  and  1836  considered  distribution  according  to  popula- 
tion as  fair  as  any  method  that  might  actually  be  devised.  The  fact  that 
it  was  more  than  a  decade  later  before  the  state  superintendent  began 
to  criticise  the  method  employed,  is  evidence  that  distribution  according 
to  taxables  was  generally  conceded  to  work  approximate  justice  during 
the  early  history  of  the  system. 

Discontent  with  the  basis  of  distribution  originally  selected  and  the 
suggestion  of  other  bases  came  only  after  the  schools  were  firmly  estab- 
lished and  attention  was  turned  to  perfecting  the  system.  But  no  solu- 
tion of  the  problem  was  arrived  at  and  a  serious  attempt  to  adopt  a  more 
just  basis  can  hardly  be  said  to  have  been  made. 

The  period  of  1844  to  1873  is  one  of  development  in  the  history  of  the 
subvention  to  common  schools.  The  maintenance  of  schools  becomes 
one  of  the  statutory  duties  of  the  localities.  The  provision  of  revenues 
was  settled,  at  least  temporarily,  by  inducing  the  localities  to  provide 
more  abundant  revenues.  And  the  augmentation  of  local  support  came 
about  through  the  growth  of  interest  in  the  schools  and  not  because  the 
state  held  out  inducements  in  the  form  of  larger  subventions.  While 
the  question  of  ways  and  means  was  being  settled,  the  state  subvention 
was  used  to  spur  on  the  laggard  districts  to  compel  them  to  keep  the 
schools  open  for  a  minimum  term,  and  to  conform  somewhat  to  the 
standards  set  up  by  the  state.  Finally,  during  this  period,  the  state 
slowly  increased  the  power  of  its  officers  to  inspect  the  services  sub- 
sidized and  to  compel  the  faithful  application  of  the  subvention  to  the 
the  purpose  for  which  it  was  intended.  But  one  of  the  most  important 
problems,  that  of  devising  a  suitable  and  efficient  basis  for  the  distri- 
bution of  the  subvention,  was  left  unsettled. 

62  For  a  good  summary  of  the  objections  to  distribution  according  to  taxables, 
and  some  concrete  examples  of  how  that  system  worked,  see  Supt.  of  Common  School 
Report  (1865),  pp.  23  ff. 


K)2  :  THE  .StTOBYENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

SUBVENTIONS  TO  NORMAL  SCHOOLS 

One  of  the  principal  difficulties  encountered  during  the  early  years 
of  the  common  schools  was  the  dearth  of  good  teachers.  Even  before 
the  establishment  of  the  state  system,  in  1834,  the  need  of  some  agency 
for  training  teachers  for  the  elementary  schools  was  well  recognized,  and 
attempts  were  made,  both  by  public  authorities  and  by  private  persons, 
to  supply  the  want.53  One  of  the  avowed  purposes  for  establishing 
academies  was  the  training  of  teachers.54  It  was  the  expectation  that 
the  many  colleges  and  academies  chartered  between  1786  and  1838  would 
assist  in  training  teachers  that  led  the  legislature  to  contribute  to  their 
support.  Thus,  for  instance,  the  grant  of  $500  annually  for  five  years 
to  Washington  College,  in  1831,  was  made  on  the  condition  that  the 
college  should  admit,  gratis,  each  year,  twenty  students  who  should  be 
trained  as  teachers  in  the  elementary  schools.55  Other  colleges  and 
academies  that  received  aid  on  condition  that  they  should  provide  for 
the  training  of  teachers  were,  Jefferson  College,  in  1832,56  Reading 
Academy,  in  1832,57  Pennsylvania  College  of  Gettysburg,  in  1832,58 
and  Marshall  College  in  1837.59  It  is  noticeable,  however,  that  the  act 
of  1838,  which  established  a  subvention  for  ten  years  for  the  benefit 
of  all  colleges,  academies,  and  female  seminaries  that  were  able  to  meet 
the  requirements  of  the  law,  did  not  make  the  training  of  teachers  one 
of  the  conditions  for  obtaining  state  aid.60  From  the  abandonment  of 
the  subvention  to  colleges  and  academies,  in  1844,  until  1857,  the  state 
did  nothing  directly  to  aid  in  the  development  of  normal  training  schools. 

But  although  no  definite  action  was  taken  by  the  legislature  toward 
the  establishment  of  such  schools,  public  officers  continued  to  deplore 
the  lack  of  good  teachers,  and  to  ask  state  aid  to  provide  the  necessary 
facilities  for  training  them.  In  1838,  State  Superintendent  Burrowes 
presented  to  the  legislature  an  elaborate  argument  for  free  state  nor- 
mal schools.61  The  matter  was  discussed  by  many  of  the  state  superin- 
tendents from  1838  to  1857,  and,  in  1853  and  in  1854,  bills  providing  for 

83  See  Wickersham,  pp.  612  ff. 

54  Idem,  pp.  606-607. 

55  Act  4  April,  1831,  P.L.  p.  454. 
»  Act  20  Feb.,  1832,  P.L.  p.  82. 
57  Act  5  May,  1832,  P.L.  p.  509. 

68  Act  7  April,  1832,  P.L.  p.  369. 

69  Act  29  March,  1837,  P.L.  p.  96. 

80  See  Act  12  April,  1838,  P.L.  pp.  333-334. 

81  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives  (1837-38),  II,  pp.  570  ff. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  103 

training  schools  were  introduced  into  the  legislature.  But,  for  one 
reason  or  another,  they  failed  to  become  laws.62 

The  legislature,  however,  finally  acceded  to  the  demands  of  the  edu- 
cators and  of  the  public,  and,  in  1857,  passed  an  act  "to  provide  for  due 
training  of  teachers  for  the  common  schools  of  the  state."63  But  this 
act  did  not  create  the  free  state  schools  for  which  Burro wes  had  asked 
nearly  twenty  years  before.  The  essential  features  of  the  law  were  as 
follows:  (1)  The  state  was  divided  into  twelve  districts,  each  to  contain 
a  single  state  normal  school;  (2)  the  schools  were  to  be  established  and 
maintained  by  private  companies;  (3)  the  mechanical  equipment,  teach- 
ing staff,  and,  in  part,  the  curriculum  and  methods  of  instruction  were 
to  be  such  as  would  receive  the  approval  of  the  state  superintendent; 
(4)  the  normal  school  in  each  district,  after  it  had  been  inspected  and 
approved  by  the  state  superintendent,  was  to  be  officially  designated  and 
published  as  a  "state"  normal  school;  (5)  the  schools  were  authorized  to 
grant  certificates  of  competence  to  students  who  successfully  completed 
the  course;  (6)  each  common  school  district  within  any  normal  school 
district  was  permitted  to  send,  at  its  own  expense,  annually  to  the  normal 
school  one  student  who  should  remain  until  he  had  completed  the  course, 
but  the  maximum  charge  for  each  such  student  was  limited  to  $20 
per  annum;64  (7)  the  state  promised  no  direct  financial  aid  to  such  insti- 
tutions as  should  be  established,  it  being  supposed,  writes  Wickersham, 
that  the  prestige  arising  from  their  connection  with  the  state  system 
of  common  schools  and  their  power  to  issue  certificates  would  be  suf- 
ficient reward  for  living  up  to  the  conditions  imposed.65 

It  was,  however,  more  than  two  years  after  the  passage  of  the  act 
when  the  first  normal  school  was  recognized  by  the  state.  This  was 
the  Millersville  Normal  School  in  Lancaster  County,  which  had  pre- 
viously been  conducted  as  a  private  teachers'  training  school.66  The 
second  school  to  receive  state  approval  was  the  Edinboro  Normal  School 
in  Erie  County,  which  was  recognized  in  1861.67  A  period  of  four  years 

82  See  Wickersham,  pp.  617-618. 

63  Act  20  May,  1857,  P.L.  pp.  581-587. 

64  It  was  required  that  these  students  should  give  evidence  of  intention  to  enter 
the  teaching  profession.     This  section  of  the  law  was,  as  might  have  been  expected, 
practically  futile.     By  1865  the  district  authorities  had  sent  but  three  pupils  to  the 
normal  schools.    The  state  superintendent  expressed  the  opinion  that  "It  is  not  prob- 
able that  any  more  will  ever  thus  be  sent. "    Report  (1865),  p.  26. 

WP.  621. 

66  Millersville  was  recognized  in  December,  1859.     Wickersham,  p.  624. 

67  Idem,  626. 


104  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

had  thus  elapsed  and  only  two  schools  had  been  recognized.  There 
can  be  no  doubt  that  the  establishment  of  the  normal  schools  was  slower 
than  had  been  anticipated,  and  the  advocates  of  better  training  for 
teachers  soon  began  to  revive  the  proposal  of  a  subvention  for  their 
assistance. 

The  question  may  be  asked  why  the  state  did  not  establish  these 
training  schools  and  maintain  them  under  its  own  administration.  Such 
a  policy  had  been  advocated  by  the  state  superintendent  in  1854,  but 
the  legislature  refused  to  accept  it.68  It  was  argued  that  while  public 
normal  schools  had  been  successfully  established  in  other  states  they 
were  not  suited  to  Pennsylvania.  The  principal  objections  to  state 
administration  were:  (1)  The  state  could  not  afford  to  establish  a  suffi- 
cient number  of  schools;  (2)  the  instructors  would  be  less  diligent  and 
devoted  to  their  duties  than  if  the  institutions  were  pr  vately  owned; 
(3)  politics  might  enter;  and  (4)  less  attention  would  be  given  "the 
important  subject  of  Christian  morality  than  is  due  to  it  ...  '  The 
advantages  to  be  gained  by  state  administration  were,  it  was  asserted: 
(1)  The  uniformity  which  such  administration  would  insure;  (2)  greater 
ability  of  the  faculty  in  such  institutions;  and  (3)  the  non-sectarian 
character  of  the  state  schools.  But  the  superintendent  believed  that 
the  advantages  of  the  state  school  might  be  combined  with  those  of  the 
private  school,69  and  the  law  of  1857  was  the  product  of  this  combination. 
Probably  the  strongest  reason  for  the  abandonment  of  the  plan  for  state 
schools,  which  had  been  advocated  in  1853  and  1854,  was  the  unwilling- 
ness of  the  state  legislature  to  provide  adequate  funds. 

It  was  soon  evident,  however,  that  the  plan  of  1857  would  not  be 
carried  out  quickly  enough,  since  by  1861  only  two  schools  had  been 
opened  and  ten  districts  were  as  yet  unprovided  for.  In  1860  the 
legislature  began  to  aid  the  one  existing  school  in  a  small  way.70  In 
the  following  year  the  legislature  made  an  unconditional  gift  of  $5,000 
to  each  of  the  two  schools  then  recognized.71  The  amount  of  this  appro- 
priation was  deducted  from  the  annual  subvention  to  common  schools,72 

68  Supt.  of  Common  Schools,  Report  (1857),  p.  19. 
89  Supt.  of  Common  Schools,  Report  (1856),  pp.  16-20. 

70  Act  3  April,  1860,  P.L.  pp.  638-639.    The  state  merely  assumed  the  expenses 
of  publishing  the  recognition  of  the  institution  as  a  normal  school,  and  the  cost  of  dip- 
lomas and  certain  other  incidental  items  of  a  similar  character.     The  total  amount 
of  these  expenditures  was  limited  to  $500. 

71  Act  18  April,  1861,  P.L.  p.  399. 

72  Ibid. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN    PENNSYLVANIA  105 

probably  because  the  normal  schools  were  regarded  as  an  adjunct  to 
the  common  school  system. 

The  Millersville  Normal  School  was  owned  by  a  private  corporation 
whose  stockholders,  it  may  be  assumed,  had  invested  their  money  partly 
for  the  purpose  of  earning  dividends.  The  Edinboro  school,  on  the  other 
hand,  had  been  established  through  the  liberality  of  people  within 
the  district  and  was  in  no  sense  a  money-making  venture.  These  facts 
caused  the  state  superintendent  to  suggest  that  the  stockholders  of  the 
Millersville  institution  should  be  required  to  cancel  stock  equal  to  the 
amount  of  any  subsidies  received  from  the  state.73  In  making  this 
proposal  the  superintendent  was  clearly  in  the  right.  The  state  ob- 
viously should  not  make  appropriations  to  increase  the  capital  assets 
of  private  corporations,  unless  it  retains  at  least  a  reversionary  right 
to  these  assets. 

In  1862  the  legislature  passed  the  Millersville  institution  by  but  gave 
the  Edinboro  school  $5,000,  requiring  certain  guarantees  for  the  public 
use  of  the  funds  appropriated.74  The  suggestion  of  the  state  superinten- 
dent that  care  should  be  taken  to  prevent  the  stockholders  from  profiting 
by  the  state  appropriations  had  thus  apparently  been  favorably  received. 
In  1863  appropriations  were  made  to  the  Millersville  and  the  Mansfield75 
institutions  subject  to  limitations  imposed  for  the  purpose  of  guarding 
the  state's  financial  interests.  Both  schools  were  required  not  to  alienate 
any  of  their  property,  or  to  use  it  for  other  than  educational  purposes 
without  first  repaying  the  amount  of  any  subsidies  received  from  the 
state;  both  were  required  to  reduce  capital  stock  by  the  amount  of  the 
subsidy  granted;  both  were  prohibited  from  paying  more  than  six  per 
cent  on  the  reduced  capitalization.76  In  1864,  and  again  in  1865,  the 
state  made  appropriations  to  these  two  schools  with  the  same  conditions 
attached. 

In  1866,  however,  a  new  policy  was  adopted.  Each  of  the  schools 
recognized  by  1865  had  been  paid,  or  promised  a  subsidy  of  $15,000. 
This  money  was  to  be  used  to  pay  debts  or  to  erect  buildings.  But 
these  gifts  had  not  reduced  the  tuition  charged  students,77  and,  since 
the  districts  had  failed  to  avail  themselves  of  the  opportunity  of  educating 
teachers  at  the  minimum  charge,  the  state  had  actually  accomplished 

73  Supt.  of  Common  Schools,  Report  (1861),  p.  29. 

74  Act  11  April,  1862,  P.L.  p.  461. 

76  This  school  had  only  recently  been  recognized. 

76  Sec.  29,  Act  14  April,  1863,  P.L.  p.  365. 

77  Supt.  of  Common  Schools,  Report  (1865),  pp.  24-25. 


106  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

little  to  encourage  teachers  to  secure  the  normal  training.  The  state 
superintendent  pointed  out  that  the  purpose  of  the  appropriations  should 
be  the  reduction  of  the  cost  of  securing  this  training.  Following  his 
advice,  the  legislature,  in  1866,  provided  that  the  appropriations  should 
be  used  for  the  benefit  of  prospective  teachers.  The  subvention  of  that 
year  was  distributed  in  the  following  manner:  Each  school  was  allowed 
fifty  cents  a  week  for  each  registered  student  over  seventeen  years  of 
age  who  should  sign  a  declaration  of  his  intention  to  teach  in  the  common 
schools.  If  the  student  had  been  disabled  in  the  military  service  of  the 
United  States,  or  of  Pennsylvania,  or  if  his  father  had  lost  his  life  in 
the  military  service  of  either  nation  or  state,  the  amount  of  the  weekly 
payment  was  increased  to  one  dollar.  Finally,  any  student  who,  having 
graduated  from  any  of  the  recognized  normal  schools  during  the  year 
1866-67  should  sign  an  agreement  to  teach  two  years  in  the  common 
schools  was  entitled  to  receive  fifty  dollars.  The  amount  of  the  weeKiy 
allowance  was  paid  directly  to  the  school,  which  was  required  to  deduct 
it  from  the  tuition  and  fees  payable  by  the  student.78  To  prevent  fraud 
or  misapplication  of  the  subvention  each  school  was  required  to  make 
detailed  reports  to  the  state  superintendent  before  any  payment  could 
be  made  from  the  state  treasury.79  The  amount  of  money  appropriated 
to  meet  the  above  subvention  was  $10,000,  and  if  any  part  remained 
after  satisfying  all  claimants,  such  remainder  was  to  be  divided  equally 
among  the  schools  for  the  purchase  of  books  and  equipment.80 

It  is  needless  to  observe  that  this  was  a  very  complex  subvention. 
It  was  at  once  a  subvention  to  a  private  corporation,  an  aid  to  teachers 
and  students,  and  a  military  pension.  The  grant  to  students  of  fifty 
cents  a  week  and  $50  on  completion  of  the  course  was  more  than  suffi- 
cient to  pay  their  tuition,  so  that  we  may  say  that  the  purpose  of  the 
state  was  to  provide  free  tuition  for  prospective  teachers.81 

During  the  years  1867  to  1869,  inclusive,  the  general  policy  developed 
between  1860  and  1866  held  sway.  Each  normal  school  received  within 
three  to  five  years  after  organization,  $15,000  for  the  reduction  of  its 
debt.  The  conditions  uplon  which  the  payment  was  made  remained 
as  in  the  law  of  1866.  As  soon  as  schools  were  recognized  the  state  pro- 
vided assistance  for  such  of  their  students  as  declared  their  intention 

78  Sec.  16,  Act  11  April,  1866,  P.L.  pp.  73-74. 

"Ibid. 

80  Ibid. 

n  Supt.  of  Common  Schools,  Report  (1866),  p.  xix. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  107 

of  becoming  teachers.  In  1867  the  colored  race  was  provided  for  by 
an  appropriation  to  the  normal  department  of  Lincoln  University.82 
In  Philadelphia,  which  had  developed  its  school  system  almost  inde- 
pendently of  the  rest  of  the  state,  a  Teachers'  Institute  received  recogni- 
tion to  the  extent  of  $3,000  annually.  In  1872  unconditional  grants  of 
$10,000  were  made  to  each  of  three  schools  that  had  already  received 
$15,000.  The  unfairness  of  singling  out  these  three  schools  for  especially 
liberal  treatment  was  pointed  out  by  the  state  superintendent,83  but 
nothing  was  done  by  the  legislature  to  remove  the  discrimination. 

During  the  years  1869  to  1873  the  General  Assembly  abandoned 
the  sound  policy  previously  adopted.  Before  that  time  care  had  been 
taken  not  to  aid  any  school  that  did  not  have  a  sufficient  capital  or  en- 
dowment to  insure  its  successful  establishment.  But  in  1869  the  sum 
of  $15,000  was  given  to  the  California  Normal  School  in  Washington 
County  (10th.  district)  before  the  buildings  were  completed  and  before 
the  institution  had  been  approved  by  the  superintendent.84  The  policy 
of  waiting  until  the  school  should  receive  the  recommendation  having 
once  been  abandoned,  other  grants  of  a  similar  nature  followed.85 

The  grant  to  the  Bloomsburg  school  shows  the  new  practice  of  the 
legislature  at  its  worse.  The  company  had  been  granted  $15,000  without 
taking  the  trouble  to  ascertain  whether  it  could  obtain  sufficient  addition- 
al funds  to  equip  and  to  maintain  a  school.  In  1872  the  members  of 
the  General  Assembly  were  approached  for  an  additional  $10,000  to 
save  the  institution  from  bankruptcy.  This  was  granted  on  the  suppo- 
sition that  the  school  would  thereby  be  placed  on  a  sound  basis.  But 
in  1873  the  trustees  came  back  with  the  astonishing  assertion  that,  if 
the  state  did  not  come  to  their  rescue,  the  property  would  probably  be 
sold  at  sheriff's  sale  to  satisfy  a  private  debt.  The  legislature  was  urged 
to  save  the  school  for  the  benefit  of  the  youth  of  the  state  and  to  prevent 
the  loss  of  the  $25, 000  previously  given.86  It  was  brought  out  in  debate 
in  the  legislature  that  in  some  instances,  owing  to  loosely  worded  laws, 

82  Act  11  April,  1867,  P.L.  p.  9. 

83  Report  (1872),  p.  xix.     The  superintendent  asserted  that  the   most  deserving 
schools,  the  older  ones  that  had  been  of  most  assistance  in  training  teachers,  had  been 
discriminated  against. 

84  Act  10  April,  1869  P.L.  pp.  829-830. 

85  Supt.  of  Common  Schools,  Report  (1873),  p.  xix. 

86  See  the  statement  of  Mr.  Harry  White  in  the  Senate  21  March,  1873,  Legislative 
Journal,  p.  805,  col.  1;  also  that  of  Mr.  Butler  B.  Strong  in  the  same  body,  idem,  p. 
805,  col.  2. 


108  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

the  state  had  not  taken  a  lien  on  the  property  of  the  schools  subsidized 
to  secure  the  repayment  of  the  grant,87  and  was  therefore  without  re- 
course if  the  school  were  sold  on  a  judgment  for  debt. 

The  method  by  which  these  careless  grants  were  engineered  was 
very  simple.  Two  forces  were  at  work.  "We  all  have  pressing  con- 
stituents here,"  said  one  senator,  "trying  to  seduce  senators  into  the 
support  of  the  particular  policy  that  will  lift  their  school  out  of  the 
mire."88  The  lobby  of  interested  constituents  had  indeed  enticed  the 
representatives  of  the  people,  sworn  to  do  their  duty,  from  the  straight 
and  narrow  path.  It  is  not  clear,  however,  how  the  voters  in  one  normal 
school  district  could  hypnotize  a  majority  of  the  entire  legislature.  But 
even  this  was  easy  when  once  the  right  method  was  hit  upon.  When 
the  question  was  asked  why  the  officers  of  the  other  normal  schools 
acquiesced  in  the  appropriation  of  $10,000  additional  to  the  favored 
three,  the  explanation  was  at  once  forthcoming.  All  the  other  schools 
supported  the  grant  to  these  three  on  the  condition  that  in  the  next 
session  they  should  receive  the  same  amount.89  In  a  word,  the  ill- 
advised  and  uncontrolled  grants  were  obtained  by  log-rolling,  just  as 
the  grants  to  academies  had  been  obtained  a  half-century  earlier.  That 
such  should  have  been  the  case  whenever  the  state  undertook  to  aid 
privately  owned  institutions  seems  to  have  been  inevitable  in  the  history 
of  Pennsylvania.  Today  the  grants  to  private  charitable  institutions 
are  obtained  in  the  same  manner. 

The  revelations  concerning  the  Bloomsburg  school  caused  the  passage 
of  more  stringent  regulations  for  the  management  of  the  schools  and 
the  adoption  of  a  different  method  of  making  the  appropriation  for  their 
assistance.  In  1873  the  sum  of  $50,000  was  appropriated  for  the  benefit 
of  the  normal  school  companies,  but  no  distribution  of  this  amount  was 
made  by  the  General  Assembly.  The  Governor,  the  Superintendent 
of  Common  Schools,  and  the  Attorney  General  were  named  as  a  board 
to  distribute  the  appropiration,  "  on  such  terms  and  conditions  as  they 
may  [might]  determine,  looking  to  the  interest  of  the  state  as  well  as 
the  welfare  of  the  school.  ...  "90  The  act  also  provided  that  a  cer- 
tain number  of  members  of  the  boards  of  trustees  should  be  appointed 

87  Legislative  Journal,  p.  805,  col.  2. 

88  Mr.  Harry  White,  idem,  p.  805,  col.  1. 

89  See  statements  of  Mr.  W.  B.  Waddell  and  Mr.  Depuy  Davis,  in  the  Senate, 
21  March,  1873,  Legislative  Journal,  p.  806,  col.  1,  and  of  Mr.  Harry  White,  idem, 
col.  2. 

90  Act  9  April,  1873,  P.L.  pp.  9-10. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  109 

by  the  state  superintendent,  the  number  being  in  proportion  to  the  state's 
contributions  to  each  school.  Thus,  if  the  state  had  appropriated 
$15,000  while  private  persons  had  contributed  $30,000  to  the  building 
of  a  school,  the  state  would  be  entitled  to  five  out  of  the  fifteen  trustees.91 
The  legislature  made  at  least  one  exception  to  this  rule.92  The  purpose 
of  this  plan,  was  not,  of  course,  absolutely  to  control  the  boards  of  trus- 
tees.93 The  stockholders  still  elected  a  majority  of  the  members  of 
these  boards,  but  it  would  have  been  possible,  had  the  right  men  been 
appointed,  to  hold  the  other  members  somewhat  in  check,  and  what  was 
still  more  important,  the  power  to  appoint  a  minority  of  the  boards 
gave  the  superintendent  the  opportunity  to  obtain  intimate  information 
as  to  the  conduct  of  the  schools. 

It  is  impossible  to  discover  from  the  reports  of  state  officers  what 
was  the  proportion  of  the  total  cost  of  buildings  and  equipment  contri- 
buted by  the  state  at  this  time.  So  too,  the  figures  that  should  show  the 
proportion  of  the  annual  revenues  received  from  the  state  are  either 
entirely  lacking,  in  certain  years,  or  are  so  inaccurate  as  to  be  useless. 
The  total  annual  contributions  of  the  state  to  the  support  of  these  schools 
are  shown  in  Table  II  in  the  Appendix. 

In  conclusion,  it  should  be  pointed  out  that  in  some  respects  the  sub- 
vention to  normal  schools  was  successful,  while  in  others  it  was  not.  In 
the  first  place,  the  intention  implied  in  the  law  of  1857,  of  not  contribu- 
ting to  the  support  of  these  schools,  was  not  maintained.  The  policy 
of  making  grants  to  the  school  companies,  which  was  begun  in  1860, 
was  supplemented,  about  the  close  of  the  Civil  War,  by  assistance  to 
prospective  teachers  and  additional  assistance  to  disabled  soldiers  who 
desired  to  enter  the  teaching  profession.  After  1864  the  policy  became 
more  liberal  and  the  method  of  appropriation  more  lax,  until  in  the  years 
1869  to  1872,  grants  were  made  to  schools  that  not  only  were  not  in 
existence,  but  could  not  command  the  support  of  the  people  of  the  com- 
munities in  which  they  were  to  be  located. 

But  the  policy  was  successful  in  that  it  called  into  existence,  within 
a  relatively  short  period  of  time,  eight  training  schools  for  teachers, 
counting  Lincoln  University,  whose  curricula  and  methods  were  subject 
to  state  supervision,  though  probably  of  a  very  mild  sort  in  practice. 

91  Act  9  April,  1873,  P.  L.  pp.  9-10. 

92  The  board  of  trustees  of  the  Mansfield  Normal  School  was  reduced,  in  1873,  to 
nine  in  number,  of  which  three  were  to  be  named  by  the  state  superintendent.     Act 
10  April,  1873,  P.I.  pp.  711-712. 

93  See  Act  15  April,  1872,  P.L.  pp.  16-17. 


110  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

The  total  subvention  for  all  purposes  amounted,  for  the  period  1860- 
1873  to  $325,222.94  It  is  scarcely  possible  that  the  state  could  have 
established  and  maintained  eight  schools  for  that  amount,  if  it  had 
undertaken  to  administer  them  directly. 

As  has  been  pointed  out,  the  subvention  was  very  complex.  In 
some  cases  it  was  conditional,  in  others  unconditional.  The  financial 
accountability  of  the  trustees  was  very  slight.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
power  of  the  state  superintendent  to  supervise  the  methods  of  instruction 
and  other  details  of  the  conduct  of  the  schools  was  very  great.  How 
effectively  this  power  was  exercised  cannot  be  determined.  Much  must 
have  depended  upon  the  man  who  occupied  the  office  of  state  superinten- 
dent. Two  desirable  restrictions  were  placed  upon  the  grant  for  the 
assistance  of  teachers.  It  was  provided  that  all  students  drawing  an 
allowance  from  the  state  should  receive  instruction  in  the  science  and 
the  art  of  teaching  for  the  whole  term  for  which  the  allowance  was 
drawn.  It  was  also  required  that  the  examination  of  graduates  should 
be  conducted  by  a  board  of  professional  educators,  appointed  by  the 
state  superintendent,  only  one  of  whom  might  be  connected  with  the 
school  whose  students  were  being  examined.95  The  state  superintendent 
was  clearly  given  the  power  by  the  latter  provision  to  set,  in  a  large  mea- 
sure, the  standards  of  proficiency  for  the  graduates  of  the  various  schools. 
Here  again  it  is  impossible  to  ascertain  the  quality  of  the  control  actually 
exercised. 

SUBVENTIONS  TO  OTHER  EDUCATIONAL  INSTITUTIONS 
Subventions  to  privately  owned  educational  institutions,  other  than 
normal  schools,  were  neither  numerous  nor  important  during  this  period. 
Several  grants  of  large  amounts  were,  it  is  true,  made  to  medical 
colleges,  and  to  the  medical  department  of  the  University  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, but  since  these  grants  were  always  for  founding,  equipping,  or 
maintaining  hospitals  that  rendered  free  treatment  to  the  indigent  sick, 
they  are  properly  classed  with  subventions  to  charities.  There  were, 
however,  several  educational  grants  that  deserve  brief  description. 

The  office  of  county  superintendent,  which  was  created  in  1854, 
was  established  in  the  face  of  considerable  opposition  from  local  boards 
of  directors  and  from  the  taxpayers  in  general.  The  authors  of  the  law, 
therefore,  sought  to  allay  this  opposition  by  providing  that  the  county 

fl<  Supt.  of  Common  Schools,  Report  (1873),  p.  Iviii,  $68,800  more  was  due  from 
the  state  but  unpaid. 

86  Act  27  May,  1871,  P.L.  pp.  212-213. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  111 

superintendents  should  be  elected  by  conventions  of  the  local  school 
boards,  but  paid  by  the  state.  The  conventions  also  fixed  the  salaries 
of  the  superintendents.96  The  salaries  of  these  officers  were,  however, 
included  in  the  appropriation  to  common  schools.  Philadelphia,  having 
no  county  superintendent,  received  the  amount  which  would  have  fallen 
to  the  county  had  no  deduction  been  made  for  the  salaries  of  the  super- 
intendents.97 

The  principal  duties  of  the  county  superintendent  were  to  examine 
and  to  pass  upon  the  competence  of  teachers,  to  receive,  to  inspect,  and 
to  transmit  to  the  state  superintendent  the  reports  of  the  boards  of 
directors  upon  which  the  share  of  the  district  in  the  subvention  to 
common  schools  depended,  and  to  supervise  the  work  of  teachers. 
It  was  necessary,  therefore,  that  the  state  superintendent  should 
have  the  authority  to  control  or  discipline  his  representative  in  each 
county,  and  the  law  provided  that  the  state  officer  might  remove 
the  county  superintendent  for  neglect  of  duty,  incompetency  or  immoral- 
ity, and  appoint  another  in  his  stead  until  the  next  triennial  convention 
of  directors.98  The  state  accomplished  two  purposes  by  means  of  the 
payment  of  the  salary  of  the  local  superintendent.  It  succeeded  in  get- 
ting the  new  office  into  the  school  system  with  a  minimum  of  local  oppo- 
sition and  placed  it  in  such  a  relation  of  dependence  upon  the  state 
treasury  that  no  objection  could  reasonably  be  made  to  the  power  of 
removal  vested  in  the  state  superintendent. 

A  small  and  by  no  means  significant  subvention  was  found  in  an 
act  of  1855,  which  provided  that  the  state  superintendent  should  supply 
each  board  of  directors  with  the  Pennsylvania  School  Journal.99 

A  more  important  subvention,  especially  in  its  later  development, 
was  the  grant  made  at  intervals  to  the  Farmer's  High  School.100  This 
institution,  whose  board  of  trustees  was  incorporated  in  1855, loi  at  once 
requested  aid  from  the  state  treasury  and  for  a  time  was  successful  in 
obtaining  it. 

From  the  first  the  state  was  represented  on  the  board  of  directors 
of  the  Farmer's  High  School.  The  board  was  composed  of  the  Governor 

96  Act  8  May,  1854,  P.L.  pp.  625-627. 

97  Idem,  p.  629. 
••  Idem,  p.  628. 

99  Act  8  May,  1855,  P.L.  p.  511. 

100  Afterwards  called  the  State  Agricultural  College  of  Pennsylvania, 

101  The  first  act  of  incorporation  was  that  of  15  April,  1854,  P.L.,  pp.  342  ff.     But 
the  act  of  the  following  year  under  which  the  school  was  organized,  repealed  that  of 
1854.    See  Act  22  Feb.,  1855,  P.L.  pp.  46  ff . 


112  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

and  the  Secretary  of  the  Commonwealth,  the  president  of  the  Pennsyl- 
vania State  Agricultural  Society,  the  president  of  the  school,  and  nine 
other  members  elected  indirectly  by  the  state  and  county  agricultural 
societies.102  Because  of  the  importance  of  the  interests  that  it  served, 
because  it  was  in  no  sense  a  local  institution,  and  because  of  the  repre- 
sentation of  the  state  on  its  board  of  trustees,  this  was  an  institution 
that  the  state  should  have  aided  very  liberally.  But  it  received  very 
little  assistance  for  many  years.  In  1857,  $25,000  was  appropriated  for 
the  erection  of  a  building  and  $25,000  more  was  promised  if  an  equal 
amount  should  be  raised  by  the  contributions  of  individuals.103  Three 
conditions  were  attached  to  this  grant.  The  school  was  required,  if 
at  any  time  the  number  of  students  seeking  admission  exceeded  its 
capacity,  to  admit  applicants  from  the  several  counties  in  proportion 
to  the  number  of  taxable  inhabitants  within  each.  It  was  also  required 
to  make  a  chemical  analysis  of  soils  and  fertilizers,  gratis,  for  any  citizen 
who  asked  it.  Periodical  reports  to  the  newspapers  in  each  county  of 
the  results  of  all  experiments  performed  at  the  school  was  another  con- 
dition.104 No  one  could  call  these  conditions  onerous. 

In  1861  the  friends  of  the  school  made  another  appeal  for  state  aid. 
The  building,  which  had  been  begun  with  the  money  previously  appro- 
priated, had  not  been  completed  because  of  lack  of  funds.  It  was 
pointed  out  to  the  legislature  that  in  its  unfinished  condition  the  building 
was  subject  to  rapid  deterioration  and  a  further  appropriation  was  asked 
to  prevent  the  wasting  of  the  earlier  one,  and  to  put  the  school  in  working 
order.  The  legislature  granted  $49,900  on  condition  that  before  any 
part  of  the  appropriation  was  paid,  a  contract  with  a  reputable  builder 
to  finish  the  work  for  the  amount  of  the  grant  should  be  placed  in  the 
hands  of  the  auditor  general.105  In  only  one  respect  was  this  grant 
inadequate:  The  state  did  not  provide  for  inspection  of  the  building 
before  the  entire  amount  of  the  grant  was  paid. 

Judged  by  the  criteria  of  public  finance,  the  subvention  to  the  Far- 
mer's High  school  was  the  best  that  was  made  during  this  period.  The 
service  aided  was  of  state-wide  importance;  it  was  one  from  which  bene- 
fits were  derived  by  only  one  class  of  citizens,  it  is  true,  but  they  were 
distributed  in  every  part  of  the  Commonwealth  and  represented  the 
most  important  industrial  interest  of  the  state.  In  the  second  place, 

102  Act  22  Feb.  1855,  P.L.  pp.  46-47. 

103  Act  20  May,  1857,  P.L.  pp.  617-618. 


106  Act  18  April,  1861,  P.L.  pp.  392-393. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  113 

the  state  did  not  bestow  its  aid  lavishly  and  it  required  assurances  that 
the  money  appropriated  would  be  used  for  the  purpose  for  which  it  was 
granted.  Finally,  the  state  placed  two  of  its  own  officers  on  the  board 
of  trustees. 

It  may  properly  be  objected  that  in  the  long  run  it  would  have  been 
better  had  the  college  been  established  by  and  entirely  controlled  by 
the  state.  Under  present-day  conditions  scarcely  any  one  would  question 
the  advisability  of  state  control.  But  at  the  time  the  college  was  begun 
the  practical  value  of  technical  education  in  agriculture  had  not  been 
demonstrated,  and  it  was  probably  impossible  to  secure  sufficient  support 
from  the  legislature  to  maintain  the  school.  Since  state  ownership  and 
operation  was  practically  impossible  at  that  time,  because  the  people 
of  the  state  failed  to  appreciate  the  importance  of  agricultural  education, 
the  plan  of  state  assistance  to  a  semi-public  institution  was  as  good  as 
any  that  could  have  been  devised.  The  total  amount  of  the  state's 
payments  from  the  establishment  of  the  school  until  1873  is  shown  in 
Table  II  in  the  Appendix. 

Several  other  small  grants  to  educational  institutions  made  their 
appearance  during  this  period.  In  1862  the  legislature  appropriated 
$2,000  unconditionally  for  the  benefit  of  the  Philadelphia  School  of 
Design  for  Women  to  be  paid  out  of  Philadelphia's  quota  in  the  common 
school  subvention.106  In  1864  the  amount  of  the  grant  was  increased 
to  $5,000.107  But  it  was  now  provided  that  the  citizens  of  Philadelphia 
should  contribute  $10,000  for  the  alteration  and  extension  of  the  build- 
ings of  the  institution.  The  trustees  of  the  school  were  required  to 
expend  one-fifth  of  the  state  grant  in  procuring,  from  European  schools 
of  science  and  art,  standard  examples  of  architecture  and  ornament  as 
applied  to  manufactures,  copies  of  which  were  to  be  distributed  to  the 
manufacturing  centers  of  the  state.108  At  this  time  the  state  appropria- 
tion was  made  payable  directly  from  the  treasury  and  not  from  Philadel- 
phia's share  in  the  state  grant  to  common  schools.  In  1865  a  school  of 
design  for  women  at  Pittsburg  also  received  a  grant  from  the  state.109 
In  1868  a  school  of  design  appeared  at  Wilkes-Barre  and  received 

108  Act  1 1  April,  1862,  P.L.  p.  461 . 

107  Act  5  May,  1864,  P.L.  p.  225. 

108  Idem,  p.  256. 

109  See  Table  II  Appendix.     For  a  short  history  of  these  two  schools  see  Wicker- 
sham,  pp.  439-440. 


114  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

$1,000.110  From  1869  to  1873  no  appropriations  were  made  to  these 
institutions. 

The  grants  to  these  three  schools  are  in  no  way  peculiar,  or  different 
from  those  made  at  this  time  to  other  private  institutions  for  charity 
and  for  education.  It  should  be  noted,  however,  that  at  the  time  the 
legislature  was  proclaiming  the  inability  of  the  state  to  contribute  more 
liberally  to  the  support  of  the  common  schools  and  to  provide  normal 
schools,  from  $2,000  to  $5,000  annually  could  be  found  for  institutions 
that  were  yet  hardly  more  than  doubtful  experiments. 

Another  educational  subvention  during  this  period  was  a  grant  of 
$5,000  to  the  Polytechnic  CoUege  of  Pennsylvania,  in  1867,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  establishing  five  free  scholarships.111  A  general  subvention  to 
colleges  and  academies  did  not  develop,  but  the  advisability  of  reviving 
the  policy  embodied  in  the  act  of  1838  seems  to  have  been  under  con- 
sideration. In  his  annual  message  in  1861  Governor  Packer  disposes 
of  the  matter  by  saying,  "The  present  is  not  the  proper  time  to  renew 
grants  to  institutions  of  these  classes  which  heretofore  have  received 
state  aid.  If  it  were,  the  public  authorities  do  not  possess  the  requisite 
data  for  a  safe  and  just  extension  of  liberality."112 

SUBVENTIONS  TO  PRIVATE  CHARITABLE  INSTITUTIONS 
During  the  years  1844  to  1859  subventions  to  private  charitable 
institutions  increased  very  slowly.  The  financial  difficulties  of  the 
state,  due  to  the  failure  of  the  state  works,  tended  to  prevent  the  develop- 
ment of  new  subventions  and  restricted  the  increase  of  those  already 
in  existence.  But  the  period  immediately  following  the  Civil  War 
witnessed  an  unprecedented  extension  of  the  subventions  to  all  sorts  of 
charitable  relief.113 

Three  types  of  charitable  relief  not  previously  assisted  began  to 
receive  aid  during  the  decade  preceding  the  Civil  War.  In  1852  the 
state  began  to  subsidize  the  Western  Pennsylvania  Hospital,  which 
was  located  at  Pittsburgh.114  The  grant  was  made  for  the  assistance 
of  an  asylum  for  the  insane,  which  was  conducted  as  a  department  of 

110  Act  11  April,  1868,  P.L.  p.  28. 

111  Act  11  April,  1867,  P.L.  p.  18. 

112  Annual  Message,  1861,  Pennsylvania  Archives,  IV  Ser.  VIII,  p.  280. 

113  As  has  been  pointed  out  in  Chapter  IV,  but  three  institutions  were  recognized, 
in  1844,  as  having  a  claim  for  an  annual  subvention.    These  were  the  House  of  Refuge, 
the  Pennsylvania  Institution  for  the  Deaf  and  Dumb  and  the  Pennsylvania  Institution 
for  the  Blind,  all  located  at  Philadelphia. 

»« Act  4  May,  1852,  P.L.  p.  553. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  115 

the  hospital.  It  was  not  at  first  a  permanent  annual  payment  and  a 
period  of  five  years  elapsed  before  a  second  appropriation  was  made; 
but,  after  1857,  the  hospital  received  aid  annually. 

It  is  not  quite  clear  why  the  state  should  have  begun  a  subvention 
for  the  benefit  of  an  asylum  for  the  insane.  A  state  hospital  for  that 
purpose  was  already  in  operation  at  Harrisburg.  It  was  asserted  that 
an  asylum  should  be  located  in  the  western  part  of  the  state,  partly  for 
convenience  and  partly  because  the  Harrisburg  institution  could  not 
accommodate  all  the  insane  who  might  have  been  committed  to  a  public 
asylum.  But  there  seems  to  have  been  no  good  reason  why  another 
state  institution  should  not  have  been  established  at  Pittsburgh,  unless 
the  General  Assembly  believed  that  it  was  temporarily  cheaper  to  assist 
a  private  concern. 

The  fact  that  the  state  contributed  to  the  support  of  the  hospital  did 
not  obligate  the  managers  to  receive  patients  free  of  charge.  At  that 
time  the  state  hospital  did  not,  in  theory  at  least,  provide  free  treatment. 
The  estate  of  any  insane  person,  or  his  relatives  liable  according  to  the 
poor  law  for  his  support,  were  chargeable  with  the  cost  of  food,  clothing, 
and  care.  The  state  provided  the  building  and  equipment  and  medical 
treatment.  If  the  person  committed  was  a  pauper,  the  county  of  which 
he  was  a  legal  resident  was  responsible  for  the  cost  of  his  maintenance. 
In  making  the  grant  to  the  Pittsburgh  institution  the  legislature  re- 
quired it  to  admit  patients  on  the  same  basis  as  the  state  hospital  at 
Harrisburg.  There  was,  of  course,  only  the  roughest  sort  of  approxima- 
tion between  the  amount  of  the  grant  and  a  fair  remuneration  for  the 
service  rendered. 

This  subvention  to  Dixmont,  as  the  department  for  the  insane  was 
afterwards  called,  was  one  of  the  most  significant  that  the  state  ever 
introduced.  It  initiated  a  policy  which  has  had  highly  unfavorable 
effects  upon  the  entire  system  of  state  charitable  and  correctional  in- 
stitutions. When  it  became  the  settled  practice  of  the  legislature  to 
appropriate  large  amounts  to  privately  managed  concerns,  there  was 
an  ever-present  danger  that  the  state  institutions  would  be  neglected 
in  order  to  deal  liberally  with  those  under  the  control  of  individuals. 
The  full  effects  of  this  policy  become  evident  especially  after  1873.115 

In  1853  an  institution  that  provided  care  and  training  for  another 
class  of  defectives  gained  assistance  from  the  state.  The  act  that  in- 
corporated the  Pennsylvania  Training  School  for  Idiotic  and  Feeble- 

118  See  Chapter  IX,  infra. 


116  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

Minded  Children  also  provided  for  a  state  contribution  of  $20,000 
toward  the  cost  of  building  and  grounds,  if  an  equal  sum  should  be  raised 
for  that  purpose  by  private  subscription.116  This  was  a  lump-sum 
grant  modeled  after  those  made  in  earlier  years  to  the  institutions  for 
the  training  of  the  blind  and  of  the  deaf  mutes.  Following  the  precedent 
set  in  the  case  of  those  two  institutions,  the  act  of  1853  also  provided 
that  the  state  should  pay  $200  annually,  per  child,  for  not  more  than 
twenty  inmates  of  the  institution  for  the  feeble  minded.117  These  chil- 
dren were  to  be  apportioned  to  the  various  counties  in  proportion  to 
their  representation  in  the  lower  house  of  the  General  Assembly.  It 
was  required  that  they  should  be  indigents,  and  the  period  of  their 
training  at  state  expense  was  limited  to  five  years.118 

During  the  next  six  years  the  state  contributed  liberally  to  the  cost 
of  buildings.  Of  course,  it  was  usually  provided  that  such  contributions 
should  be  dependent  upon  the  subscription  of  certain  sums  by  private 
persons.  But  the  fact  that  the  institution  returned  again  and  again 
asking  aid  for  the  completion  of  the  buildings  originally  planned  raises 
a  strong  presumption  that  the  private  subscriptions  were  not  always 
paid  in  full.119  The  state  took  no  lien  upon  the  property  nor  any  other 
security  for  its  investment,  and  aside  from  the  practically  futile  require- 
ment that  the  corporation  should  make  an  annual  report  to  the  legislature, 
no  control  or  audit  of  accounts  seem  to  have  been  required. 

A  third  type  of  service  to  receive  state  aid  before  1860  was  the  re- 
lief of  orphaned  or  friendless  children.  In  1857  the  Orphan  Asylum 
of  Lancaster  received  an  unconditional  grant  of  $1,000  annually  for 
four  years,120  and  in  1858  an  orphanage  at  Pittsburgh  received  a  similar 
grant.121  Both  institutions  had  received  an  appropriation  at  an  earlier 
date  and  these  grants  were  ostensibly  made  to  fulfil  an  old  obligation. 
In  the  same  year,  however,  an  unconditional  grant  was  made  to  an 
orphange  that  had  no  such  claim  upon  the  bounty  of  the  state,122  and  in 
the  following  year  still  another  was  added.123 

"•  Act  17  April,  1853,  P.L.  p.  342. 
™Ibid. 

118  Act  17  April,  1853,  P.L.  p.  342. 

119  See  acts  making  appropriations  for  buildings,  18  May,  1857,  P.L.  p.  569;  21 
April,  1858,  P.L.  p.  381 ;  12  April,  1859,  P.L.  p.  551. 

150  Act  21  April,  1857,  P.L.  p.  274. 

m  Act  19  April,  1858,  P.L.  p.  343. 

m  This  grant  was  made  to  the  Northern  Home  for  Friendless  Children.  Although 
it  was  primarily  an  orphanage,  the  courts  were  authorized  to  commit  to  its  care  vagrant 
children  who  were  likely  to  become  criminals.  Act  2 1  April,  1858,  P.L.  p.  382. 

123  Act  12  April,  1859,  P.L.  p.  552. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  117 

In  1859  a  fourth  type  of  service  received  aid.  In  that  year  the  legis- 
lature made  an  appropriation  of  $5,000  to  the  Penn  Asylum  for  Widows 
and  Indigent  Single  Women.124  This  was  a  distinctly  new  departure. 
The  blind,  the  deaf  mutes,  the  insane,  and  neglected  children  had  long 
been  recognized  as  deserving  aid  by  the  state.  Furthermore,  in  the  case 
of  the  first  three  classes,  remedial  treatment  could  be  most  effectually 
administered  in  specialized  institutions.  Hence  there  was  good  ground 
for  state  assistance.  But  the  Penn  Asylum  was  purely  a  local  charity, 
operating  in  Philadelphia,  and  the  service  that  it  performed  was  prac- 
tically that  of  general  poor  relief.  There  was  no  more  reason,  as  far  as 
can  now  be  discovered,  for  subsidizing  it  than  there  would  have  been  for 
assisting  all  the  other  public  and  private  agencies  then  engaged  in  poor 
relief.  In  other  respects  also  the  grant  was  an  unusual  one.  No  sub- 
scription from  individuals  was  required  and  no  obligation  was  imposed 
as  to  the  number  of  charity  inmates  that  should  be  received.  Neither 
control  nor  audit  by  state  officers  was  provided  for. 

The  institutions  for  the  blind  and  the  deaf  mutes  and  the  House  of 
Refuge  at  Philadelphia  continued  to  receive  increasing  appropriations 
throughout  this  period.  In  1850  a  house  of  refuge,  similar  in  purpose 
to  the  older  institution  at  Philadelphia,  was  established  at  Pittsburgh.125 
The  state  gave  $20,000  for  buildings  with  the  usual  stipulation  that  an 
equal  amount  should  be  contributed  by  private  subscription.126  But 
as  was  also  usual,  this  amount  proved  insufficient  to  complete  the  build- 
ings and  the  institution  came  back,  in  1854,  with  a  request  for  further 
assistance  from  the  legislature.  An  additional  grant  of  $20,000  was  made 
with  the  requirement  that  individuals  should  subscribe  the  same 
amount.127  It  is  impossible  to  ascertain  whether  the  private  subscrip- 
tions were  not  collected,  or  whether  the  cost  of  the  buildings  had  been 
underestimated,  or  whether  the  officers  asked  less  in  the  first  place  than 
they  knew  would  be  required  to  complete  their  plant.  The  fact  that  it 
was  an  almost  certain  method  of  obtaining  additional  funds  from  the 
legislature  to  urge  that  an  earlier  appropriation  would  be  wasted  unless 

124  Act  12  April,  1859,  P.L.  p.  552. 

125  Act  22  April,  1850,  P.L.  pp.  539-542.    The  title  of  this  Act  reads:  "An  Act, 
To  secure  the  Cities  of  Pittsburg  and  Allegheny  and  the  neighborhood  thereof  from 
damage  by  gunpowder,  to  incorporate  an  association  for  the  establishment  of  a  house 
of  refuge  for  western  Pennsylvania;  and  relative  to  the  Pennsylvania  State  Lunatic 
Hospital." 

128  Ibid. 

127  Act  16  March,  1854,  P.L.  p.  173. 


118 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 


more  money  should  be  supplied,  justifies  the  conjecture  that  the  officers 
of  such  institutions  did  not  always  represent  the  cost  of  the  buildings 
correctly.  It  is  also  possible  that  after  the  subvention  was  secured  the 
plans  were  altered.  To  prevent  the  recurrence  of  such  situations  the 
legislature,  in  1861,  required  the  officers  of  the  Farmer's  High  School  to 
exhibit  a  contract  which  bound  a  reputable  builder  to  complete  the 
building  for  the  estimated  sum  before  the  subvention  should  be  paid.128 
Whatever  the  cause,  the  fact  remains  that  in  far  too  many  cases  the  state 
was  practically  forced  to  make  additional  appropriations  for  permanent 
improvements  by  the  plea  that  half -built  plants  were  useless  and  in  their 
unfinished  state  were  being  destroyed  by  the  elements.  The  failure  of 
the  legislature  to  require  all  institutions  that  asked  assistance  in  building 
to  show  definitely  that  the  work  contemplated  could  be  finished  for  the 
estimated  cost,  thus  resulted  in  wasteful  methods.  In  many  cases,  it 
also  resulted  in  larger  appropriations  than  might  otherwise  have  seemed 
advisable  to  the  majority  of  the  General  Assembly. 

The  progress  of  the  subventions  for  charity  from  1844  to  1859  is  shown 
in  the  following  table. 

SUBVENTIONS  FOR  CHARITY,  1844  TO  1859,  INCLUSIVE1 


Year 
End- 
ing 
Nov. 
30 

Total 

Indigent  Defectives 

Neglected 
Children 

Indi- 
gent 
Adults 

Miscel- 
laneous 

The 
Blind 

Deaf- 
mutes 

Feeble- 
minded 
Children 

The 
Insane 

Orphans 

Incorri- 
gible 
Children 

1844 
1845 
1846 
1847 
1848 
1849 
1850 
1851 
1852 
1853 
1854 
1855 
1856 
1857 
1858 
1859 

$27,357 
18,643 
19,493 
32,000 
26,000 
24,000 
38,268 
36,152 
51,653 
47,514 
49,762 
85,882 
83,268 
102,683 
146,408 
139,702 

$12,357 
3,643 
4,493 
18,000 
9,000 
9,000 
24,000 
10,500 
12,000 
12,000 
12,000 
14,500 
17,000 
19,500 
22,000 
22,000 

$11,000 
11,000 
11,000 
10,000 
13,000 
11,000 
8,268 
19,652 
14,653 
14,514 
14,750 
16,626 
16,277 
18,945 
19,908 
9,702 

$  4,000 
4,000 
4,000 
4,000 
4,000 
4,000 
6,000 
6,000 
15,000 
21,000 
22,000 
33,000 
45,000 
55,000 
57,000 
38,500 

$10,000 

$  1,012 
21,756 
1,991 
3,738 
34,000 
26,500 

$3,000 

5,000 
7,000 
30,000 

$    500 
6,500 
8,000 

$5,000 

1  From  Reports  of  the  Auditors  General,  1844  to  1859. 
128  See  pp.  11 1-1 13,  supra. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  119 

During  the  sixteen  years  ending  November  30,  1859  the  total  of  all 
subventions  to  charitable  institutions  increased  from  $27,357  to  $139,702, 
or  more  than  410  per  cent.  During  approximately  the  same  period 
(1846-1860),  the  revenue  of  the  state  increased  from  $2,115,000  to 
$3,378,000,  or  about  59  per  cent,  and  the  total  of  all  state  expenditures 
decreased  from  $3,225,000  to  $2,962,000,  or  about  8  per  cent.129  Slight 
as  was  the  development  of  subventions  to  charitable  institutions,  as 
measured  in  dollars,  its  increase  was  proportionately  more  rapid  than 
that  of  the  total  of  all  payments  from  the  state  treasury,  maintenance 
of  the  state  works  excluded.  Moreover,  it  should  be  remembered  that 
during  this  period  the  payments  to  common  schools,  as  shown  by  the 
reports  of  the  Auditors  General,  declined  until  1855.  From  1846,  when 
appropriations  had  already  been  reduced  to  relieve  the  pressure  on  the 
state  treasury,  to  1859,  the  increase  in  the  common  school  subvention 
amounted  to  only  $47,452.130 

There  is  no  completely  satisfactory  explanation  why  charitable  insti- 
tutions were  treated  more  liberally  than  were  the  common  schools. 
As  has  been  pointed  out  in  the  second  section  of  this  chapter,  the  people 
seem  to  have  lost  interest  in  the  school  system  during  the  years  1844  to  1850. 
The  charitable  institutions  were,  on  the  other  hand,  always  represented 
before  the  legislature  by  their  officers  and  friends.  It  would  be  easy 
to  assert  that  the  subvention  to  charitable  institutions  afforded  greater 
opportunity  for  manipulation  to  the  advantage  of  unscrupulous  politi- 
cians than  did  the  grant  in  aid  of  common  schools.  But  in  the  light 
of  the  revelations  of  corrupt  practice  in  the  conduct  of  common  schools, 
such  an  assertion  would  be  difficult  to  prove.131 

The  outbreak  of  the  Civil  War,  in  1861,  did  not  immediately  occasion 
any  increase  in  the  subventions  for  charity.  In  fact,  the  annual  pay- 
ments to  the  two  houses  of  refuge  were  actually  less  during  the  four 
years,  1860  to  1863  inclusive,  than  during  the  four  years  immediately 
preceding.  The  two  schools  for  the  education  of  defective  children 
received  no  important  increases  during  the  early  years  of  the  war. 

After  1865,  however,  all  the  older  institutions  received  much  larger 
grants,  and  the  subventions  to  orphanages,  hospitals,  and  the  asylum 
for  the  insane  at  Dixmont  grew  at  an  astounding  rate.  In  1865  also, 
the  state  began  to  care  for  the  orphans  of  the  soldiers  of  the  Civil  War. 

129  Reports  of  Auditors  General  for  years  1846  to  1860. 

130  See  Table  II,  Appendix. 
131Seepp.94ff.sM/>ra. 


120  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

The  growth  of  the  old  subventions  and  the  development  of  the  new  re- 
sulted in  an  increase  of  the  total  subventions  paid  to  charitable  in- 
stitutions from  $153,827,  in  1860,  to  $804,280,  in  1873,  or  a  gain  of 
423  per  cent.  The  total  expenditures  of  the  state  increased  between 
the  years  1861  and  1873  from  $5,842,000  to  $6,734,000,  or  a  gain  of  15 
per  cent.  But  the  large  military  expenditures  of  the  year  1861 
bias  these  figures  somewhat.  If  the  war  expenditures  are  elimina- 
ted from  the  total  in  each  case,  we  find  that  the  increase  was  from 
$3,483,000,  in  1861,  to  $6,648,000,  in  1873,  or  91  per  cent.  Whichever 
set  of  totals  is  selected,  the  subventions  to  charitable  agencies  increased 
much  more  rapidly  than  the  total  of  all  state  expenditures. 

Comparison  of  the  subvention  to  charities  with  that  to  educational 
institutions  is  also  significant.  The  total  of  the  grants  in  aid  to  common 
schools,  to  normal  schools,  for  the  support  of  the  office  of  County  Super- 
intendent, to  the  Farmer's  High  School,  and  to  the  Schools  of  Design 
was,  in  1860,  $280,368.  In  1873,  it  was  $785,038.  The  increase  was 
thus  about  180  per  cent,  or  much  less  than  the  increase  in  the  subvention 
to  charitable  institutions.  The  grant  to  charities  showed  the  greatest 
increase  proportionately  of  any  subvention  during  this  period,  as  is 
shown  by  Table  II  in  the  Appendix. 

The  item  of  expenditure  chiefly  responsible,  after  1865,  for  the  growth 
of  the  subvention  to  charitable  institutions,  is  the  grant  to  Soldiers' 
Orphans'  Schools.  If  we  eliminate  this  grant  from  our  calculations, 
we  find  that,  from  1860  to  1873,  the  increase  in  the  subvention  to  all 
other  charitable  institutions  was  about  120  per  cent;  and  inspection 
of  the  table  on  page  121  shows  that  appropriations  to  hospitals  for  the 
care  of  the  indigent  sick  and  to  the  two  institutions  for  the  reformation 
of  incorrigible  children  were  chiefly  responsible  for  this  increase.  The 
grants  to  the  institutions  for  the  training  of  the  blind  and  the  deaf  mutes 
increased  45  per  cent  and  108  per  cent,  respectively,  while  the  appropria- 
tions to  houses  of  refuge  increased  290  per  cent. 

The  subvention  to  hospitals  for  the  care  of  the  indigent  sick,  origina- 
ting in  1863,  was  increased  steadily  until,  in  1873,  it  amounted  to  $90,000. 
Grants  to  institutions  that  cared  for  orphans,  which  amounted  to  only 
$4,400  in  1860,  reached  a  maximum  in  1865  and  thereafter  declined. 
The  establishment  of  the  Soldiers'  Orphans'  Schools  provided  for  the 
greatest  need  and,  therefore,  smaller  amounts  were  granted  to  other  con- 
cerns. Of  course,  many  of  the  institutions  that  cared  for  this  special 
class  of  children  were  privately  owned  and  privately  managed. 


8  8  °'  3 
S  S  o  S» 

fill 

5 •  5'  0   ° 

O     O    np-i     >^» 


ff 

?i'  o* 


52. 


! 
I 


1 


OO  OO  OO  OO  OO  OO  OO  OO  OO  OO  OO  OO  GO  OO 


•^I^I^J-^J^J^C^lOJKJi— 'i— »l— 'H— 


fS 


OOOOCnOOOOOi 


O 
Ni 


CfiCn 

O    O3 


^.    W    Kj 


3  O 

C    n 


II 


I. 


19 


boOONi-*CnC/i 
NJOOC/iO'OO 


§ 


c/i  ^p  c/i  ^5  ^/* 

O   O   O   O   O 


? 


0)| 


122  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

The  causes  for  the  increase  of  charitable  expenditures  may  be  divided 
into  those  which  affected  all  expenditures  and  those  which  produced 
a  disproportionate  augmentation  of  appropriations  for  charity.  Among 
the  causes  operative  to  produce  a  general  increase  of  appropriations 
were  the  growth  of  population,  the  extension  of  the  sphere  of  state 
action,  and  the  fall  in  the  purchasing  power  of  money  due  to  the  inflation 
of  the  currency  by  the  green  backs.132 

First  among  the  special  causes  for  the  increase  of  expenditures  for 
charity  was  the  Civil  War.133  During  the  war  thousands  of  men  were 
made  invalids  by  wounds  or  by  the  ravages  of  disease.  In  so  far  as 
these  men  were  unable  to  maintain  themselves  they  became  public 
charges  and  the  augmentation  of  the  subvention  for  the  indigent  sick 
during  the  years  1863  to  1865  is  largely  due  to  the  necessity  of  caring 
for  them. 

The  war  gave  rise  to  another  class  of  dependents  whose  maintenance 
cost  the  state  more  than  all  others  combined.  These  were  the  orphans 
of  the  men  who  served  in  the  Pennsylvania  regiments.  At  first  the  state 
sought  to  provide  for  them  by  making  larger  appropriations  to  orphan- 
ages, but  their  numbers  were  so  great,  and  their  claim  upon  the  generosity 
of  the  state  was  so  patent  that  special  provision  was  soon  made  in  their 
behalf.  The  earliest  provision  for  this  class  of  dependents  was  made 
in  1864  when  the  governor  of  the  state  was  authorized  to  receive  and 
to  expend  the  sum  of  $50,000,  which  the  Pennsylvania  Railroad  had 
given  for  their  care  and  education.134  In  1865  the  legislature  appro- 
priated $75,000  from  the  public  treasury135  and  by  1873  the  annual 
expenditure  for  this  purpose  amounted  to  nearly  $500,000. 

Only  a  part  of  the  funds  expended  for  this  purpose  should  be  classed 
as  subventions.  Unfortunately  the  accounts  are  not  explicit  enough 
to  enable  a  separation  of  the  amounts  directly  expended  by  the  state 
from  amounts  granted  to  individuals  and  to  private  corporations  that 
cared  for  the  children.  Special  boarding  schools  under  the  control  of 
the  state  were  established  and  the  managers  were  paid  a  stipulated 
amount  for  each  child  that  was  cared  for.  Grants  were  also  made  on 

132  The  rise  in  the  cost  of  living  was  made  an  excuse  for  asking  increased  appro- 
priations to  charitable  institutions.     See  Board  of  Public  Charities,  Report  (1870), 
p.  129. 

133  This  was  recognized  and  commented  upon  at  the  time.     See  the  statement  of 
Mr.  Harry  White,  in  the  Senate,  in  1869,  Legislative  Record  (1869),  p.  1366. 

134  Act  6  May,  1864,  P.L.  p.  869. 
™  Act  23  March,  1865,  P.L.  p.  40. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  123 

the  same  basis  to  general  orphanages  that  received  the  children  of  the 
soldiers.  Lump-sum  appropriations  also  were  not  uncommonly  made 
to  these  latter  institutions. 

During  the  nine-year  period,  1865  to  1873  inclusive,  the  legislature 
appropriated  $3,882,298  for  the  support  of  these  children.136  The  rate 
of  increase  of  the  appropriation  was  much  more  rapid  than  that  of  the 
number  of  children  supported  at  state  expense.  In  1866,  when -there 
were  2,681  children  in  these  schools,137  the  state  paid  $250,000  for  their 
maintenance.  In  1873,  when  the  number  of  children  was  3,167,138  the 
payment  was  $465,348.  In  other  words,  an  increase  of  18  per  cent  in 
the  number  of  children  was  accompanied  by  an  increase  of  86  per  cent 
in  the  appropriation  paid.  Three  reasons  can  be  assigned  for  the  dis- 
proportionate increase  in  expenditures  for  this  purpose.  First,  as  the 
age  of  the  children  increased  the  per  capita  cost  of  maintenance  became 
higher;  second,  as  the  service  developed  better  accommodations  were 
provided ;  and,  third,  as  the  service  expanded,  inefficiency,  extravagance, 
and  graft  also  developed.139 

The  second  reason  for  the  increase  of  the  subvention  to  charity  during 
this  period  was  the  elaboration  of  the  treatment  of  defectives,  the  sick, 
and  incorrigible  children.  A  good  example  of  this  elaboration  was  the 
development  of  the  house  of  refuge  at  Philadelphia  during  the  earlier 
period.  In  the  years  1860  to  1873  the  establishment  of  a  special 
institution  for  the  treatment  and  education  of  feeble-minded  children 
is  another  example.  There  was  a  tendency  to  differentiate  classes  among 
the  inmates  of  the  local  almshouses.  The  insane  were  being  sent  more 
frequently  to  specialized  hospitals  to  receive  the  benefit  of  expert  medical 
knowledge  and  of  trained  attendants;  children  who  were  blind  or  deaf 
and  dumb  were  sent  to  the  institutions  especially  provided  for  them; 
and  the  incorrigible  were  no  longer  committed  to  the  local  jails,  but 
were  placed  in  one  of  the  two  houses  of  refuge.  As  long  as  these  special 
classes  remained  in  the  local  almshouses  or,  as  was  often  the  case  with 
the  blind  and  the  deaf  mutes,  in  the  homes  of  their  parents  or  their 

136  Exec.  Docs.  (1873),  Annual  Report  of  the  Superintendent  of  Soldiers'  Orphans' 
Schools,  p.  5 .    This  includes  subventions  and  amounts  expended  directly  by  the  state. 

137  Exec.  Docs.  (1866),  Annual  Report  of  the  Superintendent  of  Soldiers'  Orphans' 
Schools,  pp.  9-10. 

138  Exec.  Docs.  (1873),  Annual  Report  of  the  Superintendent  of  Soldiers'  Orpahns' 
Schools,  p.  4. 

139  Exec.  Docs.  (1873),  Annual  Report  of  the  Superintendent  of  Soldiers'  Orphans' 
Schools,  p.  3. 


124  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

relatives,  the  state  incurred  no  financial  liability.  But  as  soon  as  special 
institutions  for  their  treatment  were  developed  the  state  was  asked  to 
contribute  to  the  revenues  of  these  concerns. 

A  third  cause  for  the  disproportionate  increase  of  the  subvention  to 
charitable  institutions  during  this  period  was  the  opportunities  that  they 
offered  for  political  manipulation.  This  was  especially  important  in  the 
case  of  hospitals  and  orphanages.  These  institutions  could  be  estab- 
lished on  a  small  scale  at  many  different  points  within  the  state,  and 
consequently  many  charitable  and  religious  organizations  began  to 
demand  that  local  representatives  in  the  legislature  procure  for  them  a 
share  in  the  state's  bounty. 

The  large  increase  of  the  subventions  to  charitable  institutions,  which 
took  place  during  the  years  1860  to  1873,  did  not,  of  course,  occur  without 
occasioning  a  great  deal  of  comment  and  some  opposition  in  the  legisla- 
ture. This  opposition  gathered  sufficient  strength  in  the  Senate,  in 
1863,  to  result  in  the  appointment  of  a  committee  to  investigate  the 
conduct  of  the  various  institutions  that  received  state  aid  and  to  recom- 
mend a  proper  policy  of  the  state  toward  them.140  In  their  report  this 
committee  recommended  that  state  grants  to  local  charitable  institu- 
tions be  very  much  restricted.  It  was  their  opinion  that  general  hospi- 
tals, orphanages,  and  homes  for  the  aged  should  not  receive  subventions 
in  cases  where  it  could  be  demonstrated  that  they  were  of  a  purely  local 
character.141  Local  charities,  they  believed,  should  be  supported  by  local 
taxation  and  not  by  taxes  imposed  upon  the  entire  state.142 

Such  were  the  theoretical  conclusions  of  the  committee,  but  their 
practical  recommendations  were  surprisingly  mild.  They  advised  that 
no  appropriation  should  be  made  to  an  institution  that  had  not  previously 
received  state  aid,  unless  a  committee  of  the  legislature  should  investigate 
it  and  report  favorably.143  They  also  recommended  that  the  subvention 
to  the  two  houses  of  refuge  be  discontinued  and  the  cost  of  their  main- 
tenance be  made  a  charge  upon  the  counties  from  which  the  children  were 
committed,144  and  that  no  further  grants  be  made  to  the  Penn  Asylum 
for  Widows  and  Indigent  Single  Women.145  It  is  noticeable  that  the 

140  Resolution  of  6  April,  1863,  Sen.  Jour.  (1863),  p.  566. 

141  Report  of  the  Committee,  Sen.  Jour.  (1864),  p.  265. 

142  Idem,  pp.  261  and  265.     This  report  was  made  before  the  state  tax  on  real 
estate  was  repealed. 

143  Idem,  p.  266. 

144  Idem,  p.  265. 
146  Idem,  p.  263. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  125 

report  of  the  committee  deals  very  gently  with  the  subject  of  grants  to 
orphanages  and  general  hospitals.  As  a  matter  of  fact  the  state  had  not 
at  that  time  begun  to  make  annual  appropriations  to  hospitals  and  the 
subventions  to  orphanages  were  unimportant.146  The  committee  was 
scarcely  consistent,  however,  in  classing  the  institutions  for  the  reforma- 
tion of  delinquent  children  among  the  "local"  charities. 

It  seems  to  have  mattered  little  what  the  committee  recommended, 
for  the  legislature,  in  1864,  1865,  and  in  1866,  made  larger  grants  to 
charities  than  ever  before.  This  was  especially  true  of  the  subvention 
to  the  two  houses  of  refuge,  the  payments  to  which  amounted  to  over 
$91,000  in  1866.147  But  the  movement  to  restrict  the  subvention  for 
charities  to  institutions  of  state-wide  interest  was  not  dead.  In  1865, 
Governor  Curtin  advised  the  legislature  that  the  practice  of  making 
donations  to  charities  was  fast  running  into  a  great  abuse.  "  Houses 
of  refuge,  and  insane,  blind  and  deaf  asylums,  appear  to  be  proper  sub- 
jects of  State  bounty,  because  their  objects  are  of  public  importance, 
and  to  be  useful,  and  well  and  economically  managed,  it  seems  to  be 
necessary  that  they  should  be  more  extensive  than  would  be  required 
for  the  wants  of  a  particular  county.  But  in  our  system,  ordinary  local 
charities  are  left  to  the  care  of  the  respective  localities,  and  to  give  the 
public  money  for  their  support  is  really  to  tax  the  inhabitants  of  all  the 
counties  for  the  benefit  of  one.  "148  This  argument  that  a  subvention  to  a 
local  charitable  institution  was  an  unjust  discrimination  against  those 
parts  of  the  state  that  received  no  such  grant  was  repeated  many  times 
during  the  next  ten  years.  Obviously,  it  is  strongest  when  the  subven- 
tion is  made  to  a  few  localities  and  when  the  funds  for  making  it  are 
derived  from  direct  taxation  upon  the  entire  state. 

The  legislature  did  not,  however,  respect  the  Governor's  advice  any 
more  than  they  did  the  recommendations  of  the  Senate  committee  of 
1863.  Grants  were  multiplied  and  increased  in  amount  the  very  year 
that  the  governor  sent  his  warning  message.  Nor  does  it  appear  that  the 
governor  believed  sufficiently  in  the  necessity  of  restricting  these  grants 
to  cause  him  to  use  his  veto  to  discourage  the  legislature  from  making 
them.  And  in  the  meantime  the  amount  of  the  subventions  continued 
to  increase  rapidly. 

The  people  who  favored  larger  appropriations  to  charities  had  suf- 
ficient influence  at  their  command  to  secure  increases  in  the  annual 

148  See  table  on  page  121. 
147  See  table  on  page  121. 
"'Pennsylvania  Archives,  IV  Ser.  VIII,  pp.  646-647. 


126  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

appropriations,  but  not  to  prevent  discussion  and  investigation  by  the 
legislature.  In  1868  another  committee  of  investigation  was  appointed 
in  the  Senate.  The  report,  which  they  made  in  1869,  reiterated,  in  the 
main,  the  recommendations  of  the  committee  of  1863.  In  their  opinion 
the  state  should  not  contribute  to  the  support  of  purely  local  charities. 
The  penitentiaries,  the  two  houses  of  refuge,  the  asylums  for  the  insane, 
the  schools  for  the  blind,  the  deaf  mutes  and  feeble-minded  children  had 
valid  claims  upon  the  state  because  of  the  nature  of  the  services  they 
performed.149  And  because  of  the  peculiar  obligation  of  the  state  to  the 
veterans  of  the  Civil  War,  they  believed  that  soldiers'  orphans  should 
also  be  educated  and  cared  for  at  state  expense.160 

This  committee  laid  down  four  practical  rules  for  the  guidance  of  the 
legislature  in  determining  what  charitable  and  correctional  institutions 
should  be  supported  by  the  state  rather  than  by  local  governments  or 
private  philanthropy: 

(I).  The  state  should  undertake  services  that  it  could  perform  at 
less  expense  than  other  agencies.151 

(II).  The  state  should  do  what  it  could  do  better  than  other  agencies. 
Thus,  while  it  was  highly  desirable  to  leave  a  large  amount  of  charitable 
relief  to  the  localities,  because  of  the  well-known  tendency  of  the  state 
government  toward  extravagance,  certain  services  could  not  be  economi- 
cally provided  by  the  smaller  governmental  agencies.  These  services 
were  proper  objects  for  state  aid.152 

(III).  The  state  should  do  what  belonged  to  the  state  as  a  whole  to 
do.  The  duty  of  the  state  to  care  for  such  classes  as  indigent  defectives, 
the  indigent  sick,  and  orphans,  who  had  no  legal  residence  was  obvious.153 

(IV).  The  state  should  do  what  it  had  incurred  an  obligation  to  do. 
Thus,  the  care  of  soldiers'  orphans  was  an  obligation  that  rested  upon  the 
state  as  a  whole,  since  it  was  in  the  service  of  the  state  that  the  fathers 
of  these  children  had  lost  their  lives.154 

One  of  the  principal  objections  to  the  subventions  to  charity,  as  they 
existed  in  1868-69,  was  the  planless,  capricious  manner  in  which  they 
were  made.  Certain  institutions  had  received  a  single  grant;  others  had 
been  encouraged  for  a  number  of  years  and  then  summarily  cut  off. 

149  Sen.  Jour.  (1869),  pp.  156-157. 
«f/MI. 

™  Idem,  p.  155. 

™Ibid. 

™  Idem,  p.  156. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  127 

Some  institutions  had  received  aid  for  a  period  of  years,  had  then  been 
denied  appropriations  for  a  time,  for  no  apparent  good  reason,  and  had 
again  been  reinstated  in  favor  for  a  third  period.  Flagrant  discrimina- 
tion existed  between  institutions  that  were  equally  deserving,  some 
receiving  liberal  appropriations  each  year,  while  others  were  completely 
neglected.  In  short,  the  subventions  had  been  increased  and  diminished, 
granted  and  refused,  in  good  measure  from  personal  considerations.155 
The  committee  probably  did  not  intend  to  apply  this  statement  to  all 
the  subventions,  for  some  were  made  in  accordance  with  fixed  rules. 
Thus  the  annual  grants  to  the  institutions  for  the  blind,  the  deaf  mutes, 
and  feeble-minded  children  were  made  on  the  basis  of  the  number  of 
indigent  children  they  received. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  strongest  terms  that  the  committee  could 
have  employed  would  have  been  justified  in  characterizing  the  grants 
to  hospitals,  to  the  asylum  for  the  insane,  to  the  house  of  refuge,  and  to 
orphanages.  It  is  practically  impossible  to  discover  the  method  em- 
ployed by  the  legislature  to  determine  the  amounts  to  be  appropriated 
for  such  institutions.  Reports  were  required  from  the  larger  concerns,, 
but  these  documents  are  nearly  unintelligible  from  an  accounting  stand- 
point and  the  information  they  contain  is  meagre  in  the  extreme.156> 
Of  course,  very  little  aid  in  making  scientific  appropriations  could  have 
been  derived  from  these  reports ;  and  the  admission  of  one  member  of  the 

General  Assembly  that,  " we  put  them  in  our  desks,  and  in 

the  hurry  of  business  (sic)  we  never  look  at  them  again, "157 

was  probably  typical  of  the  attitude  of  a  majority  of  the  legislature. 
An  impartial  observer  would  say  that  the  reports  received  all  the  atten- 
tion they  deserved.  Sometimes  the  officers  of  the  institutions  appeared 
before  the  legislature  to  explain  their  needs.158  There  is  little  doubt 
that  the  total  amount  of  the  subventions  and  the  distribution  in  any 
year  were  largely  determined  in  committee  according  to  the  well-known 
methods  of  politics;  but  no  echo  of  these  proceedings,  as  a  rule,  reached 
the  newspapers  or  was  recorded  in  the  official  journals. 

168  Report  of  the  Committee,  Sen  Jour.  (1869),  p.  154. 

158 The  accounts  abound  in  such  entries  as,  "to  cash  received  from  the  Birch 
legacy,"  (capital  or  income?),  "to  cash  Harrisburg  and  Lancaster  Railroad,"  or 
"interest,  contribution,  etc. " 

157  Mr.  Everett,  in  the  Senate,  18  March,  1869,  Legislative  Record,  p.  1339,  col.  1. 

168  See,  for  example,  a  statement  in  the  Annual  Report  (1849)  of  The  Institution 
for  the  Blind,  pp.  7-8. 


128  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

Those  who  urged  reform  of  the  appropriations  to  charities,  in  1869, 
seem  to  have  concentrated  their  efforts  in  an  attempt  to  compel  the  legis- 
lature to  observe  some  sort  of  plan  in  making  the  subventions.  The 
four  rules  laid  down  by  the  Senate  committee  were  but  a  part  of  the 
program  for  accomplishing  that  reform.  In  accordance  with  the  resolu- 
tion which  provided  for  their  appointment159  the  committee  considered 
the  advisability  of  creating  a  state  board  that  should  inspect  or  investi- 
gate the  applicants  for  state  aid  and  report  the  result  of  their  findings 
to  the  legislature. 

After  some  time  they  proposed  a  board  of  five  to  be  appointed  by  the 
Governor.  The  members  were  to  serve  without  pay.  The  board  was 
to  be  empowered  to  employ  a  general  agent  who  should  devote  all  his 
time  to  the  investigation  of  the  various  institutions  that  received  state 
aid  and  prepare  systematic  reports  for  the  information  of  the  legislature. 
The  bill  drawn  by  the  committee  was  adopted  with  slight  modifications 
by  the  General  Assembly.166 

The  act  creating  the  board  made  it  specifically  their  (or  their  agent's) 
duty  to  visit  all  subsidized  institutions  and  to  "  ascertain  whether  the 
moneys  appropriated  for  their  aid  are  [were]  or  have  [had]  been  eco- 
noiru\caUy  and  judiciously  expended;  whether  the  object  of  the  several 
institutions  are  [were]  accomplished;  whether  the  laws  in  relation  to 
them  are  [were]  fully  complied  with;  whether  all  parts  of  the  state  are 
[were]  equally  benefited  by  them.  .  .  ,"161  The  board  was  given  power 
to  call  witnesses  and  to  compel  the  production  of  books,  accounts,  and 
papers.162  Finally,  the  act  made  it  the  duty  of  the  general  agent  to 
receive  requests  for  state  aid  from  the  various  institutions  and  to  transmit 
them  with  his  recommendations  to  the  legislature.163 

It  is  obvious  that  the  board  was  not  created  to  exercise  administra- 
tive powers.  No  institutions  were  placed  under  its  control;  it  could  not 
coerce  those  that  failed  to  comply  with  the  law;  and  it  had  no  actual 
authority  over  the  amount  of  the  subvention  going  to  any  institution. 
Its  chief  duties  were  those  of  inspection  and  publication.  It  was  devised 
to  secure  information  for  the  guidance  of  the  legislature,  but  even  for 
that  purpose  the  act  creating  the  board  was  faulty.  Members  who  re- 

159  The  committee  was  composed  of  the  Superintendent  of  Common  Schools  and 
two  senators. 

180  Act  24  April,  1869,  P.L.  p.  90. 
U1ldem,  p.  91. 
™Idem,  p.  90. 
**Idem,  p.  92. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  129 

ceived  no  pay  could  not  have  been  expected  to  devote  much  time  to  their 
duties.  It  followed,  therefore,  that  the  greater  part  of  the  work  of 
inspection  fell  upon  the  general  agent.  But  it  is  inconceivable  that  one 
man  could,  with  the  limited  office  force  provided,  have  inspected  effi- 
ciently the  accounts  and  the  quality  of  service  of  the  various  institutions 
that  received  state  aid. 

Very  little  was  actually  accomplished  by  the  board  before  1873,  but 
the  attitude  of  the  agent  was  generally  favorable  to  larger  appropriations 
for  charity.  His  report  for  1872,  which  urged  larger  appropriations  from 
the  state  treasury,  contains  an  elaborate  discussion  of  the  problem  of 
caring  for  destitute  and  neglected  children.164  In  his  opinion  there  were 
three  possible  methods  of  caring  for  these  dependents.  In  the  first  place, 
the  state  might  provide  large  institutions  in  which  the  children  would 
be  fed,  housed  and  educated.  But  this  method  was  rejected  with  the 
statement  that  "  Large  establishments  cannot  be  managed  so  as  to 
embrace  all  the  benefits  of  family  influence,  which  are  regarded  as  pecu- 
liarly important  to  the  successful  education  and  training  of  children."165 
The  second  possible  method,  that  of  requiring  the  counties  to  provide 
for  the  children,  was  dismissed  with  brief  consideration.166 

A  third  possibility  was  the  establishment  of  small  local  institutions 
by  philanthropic  organizations  with  state  aid.  These  homes,  which  the 
agent  regarded  as  among  the  most  useful  institutions  in  the  common- 
wealth were,  in  his  opinion,  the  proper  establishments  to  have  the  care 
and  training  of  neglected  children.167  They  provided  the  home  life 
necessary  for  the  proper  education  of  the  child,  and,  since  they  were 
supported  in  part  by  private  contributions,  it  was  less  costly  for  the 
state  to  aid  them  than  to  establish  homes  under  its  own  control.168 

This  analysis  of  the  problem  seems  to  have  been  accepted  for  many 
years  following  the  general  agent's  report,  and  the  arguments  in  favor 
of  the  third  scheme  have  been  used  to  justify  and  to  defend  the  grants  to 
private  institutions  even  to  the  present  time.  His  analysis  of  the  prob- 
lem, therefore,  deserves  examination.  The  argument  that  state  institu- 
tions cannot  bring  to  bear  upon  the  child  the  same  home  influences 
exerted  by  small  private  institutions  is  based  upon  the  tacit  assumption 
that  if  the  state  takes  over  the  work,  it  must  of  necessity  assemble  the 

194  Board  of  Public  Charities,  Report  (1872),  p.  5. 


167  Ibid. 


130  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

children  in  a  few  very  large  homes.  This  assumption  is  not,  however,  a 
valid  one.  There  is  no  reason  why  the  state  institutions  should  not  be 
small  enough  to  secure,  so  far  as  the  question  of  numbers  is  concerned, 
all  the  benefits  of  the  private  institution.  Furthermore,  since  each  state 
home  could  be  constructed  upon  the  plan  found  to  be  most  desirable, 
there  is  good  ground  for  believing  that  such  public  institutions  would 
not  only  provide  better  physical  environment,  but  also  better  education 
and  better  moral  surroundings  than  would  heterogeneous  private  or- 
phanages. On  the  other  hand,  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  state  cannot 
hope  to  secure  the  same  quality  of  service  from  its  employees  that  is 
sometimes  given  by  those  who  devote  their  lives  to  the  training  of  friend- 
less children  in  private  institutions. 

The  agent's  summary  rejection  of  the  local  governments  as  the 
proper  agencies  for  caring  for  orphans  was  also  based  upon  an  unwar- 
ranted assumption.  At  the  time  his  report  was  written  destitute  children 
were  usually  committed  to  the  county  almshouses.  Their  education 
and  moral  instruction  were  frequently  neglected  and  the  association  with 
adult  paupers  was  not  such  as  might  be  expected  to  inculcate  habits  of 
industry  and  morality.  But  the  agent  did  not,  in  his  published  report, 
sufficiently  consider  the  possibility  of  providing  separate  and  distinct 
homes  for  destitute  children.  Of  course,  there  is  no  evidence  to  show 
that  all,  or  even  a  majority  of  the  counties  could  have  been  induced  at 
that  time  to  undertake  the  expense  of  constructing  and  maintaining 
separate  institutions.  But  it  is  probable  that  if  the  state  had  stood 
ready  to  aid  them  as  liberally  as  it  did  the  private  institutions,  a  majority 
would  have  been  willing  to  provide  suitable  orphanages. 

Furthermore,  his  argument  that  it  was  cheaper  to  aid  private  institu- 
tions receiving  donations  from  individuals,  was  based  on  the  assumption 
that  these  donations  either  would  not  be  forthcoming,  or  could  not  be 
efficiently  applied  unless  the  state  aided  the  institutions  to  which  they 
were  given.  The  possibility  of  state  and  private  homes  or  orphanages 
serving  the  same  need  in  the  same  community  received  no  consideration. 
Yet  the  experience  of  many  states,  in  which  private  and  public  charity 
have  been  kept  almost  entirely  separate,  shows  that  hospitals  and  or- 
phanages as  well  as  other  agencies  of  philanthropy  will  be  established, 
if  there  is  need,  by  private  benefactions  even  though  the  state  maintains 
similar  institutions. 

Finally  the  argument  ignored  the  saving  that  might  come  from  cen- 
tralized administration  of  the  service.  If  the  state  had  taken  over  the 
relief  of  these  dependents  it  could  have  assembled  them  in  institutions 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  131 

of  the  most  desirable  size.  Supplies  could  have  been  purchased  at 
reduced  rates  and  other  economies  not  available  to  private  institutions 
could  have  been  introduced.  It  has  never  been  proved  that  the  state 
saved  a  dollar  by  aiding  private  institutions  that  also  received  donations 
from  individuals. 

Having  presented  the  positive  arguments  in  favor  of  the  subventions, 
the  agent  then  proceeded  to  the  current  objection  that  the  relief  of 
destitute  children  was  a  local  service  and  should  be  supported  by  local 
taxation.  In  the  first  place,  he  correctly  observed  that  many  of  the 
private  institutions  were  not  strictly  local  in  the  scope  of  their  services 
since  they  received  children  from  relatively  wide  areas.169  Secondly, 
he  observed  that  although  the  poor  law  required  each  locality  to  assume 
the  responsibility  for  its  orphans,  that  legal  principle  should  not  be 
allowed  to  obscure  the  fact  that  such  children  were  the  wards  of  the 
state,  and  the  state  was  responsible  for  their  proper  care  and  education.170 
Here,  of  course,  the  word  "state"  was  used  in  two  senses  and  the  argu- 
ment is  question-begging.  In  the  third  place,  the  care  of  destitute 
children  and  the  reformation  of  wayward  children  was  clearly  not  a  mat- 
ter of  purely  local  interest.  Children  that  grew  up  in  ignorance  and 
immorality  in  one  county  were,  he  argued,  very  likely  to  migrate  to 
other  counties  and  there  become  criminals  or  paupers.  The  neglect 
of  one  county  would  thus  impose  burdens  upon  other  communities.171 

A  fourth  argument  for  the  subvention  to  local  charities  was  derived 
from  the  analogy  of  the  grant  in  aid  to  common  schools.  The  latter 
was  justified  on  the  ground  that  the  schools  were  necessary  for  the  pro- 
tection of  republican  institutions,  and,  in  the  same  way,  the  subvetion 
to  charities  might  be  justified.172  Finally,  the  agent  pointed  out,  the 
common  objection  that  the  institutions  receiving  subsidies  were  located 
in  large  cities  and  that  the  effect  of  the  subvention  was  to  favor  these 
cities  and  that  the  effect  of  the  subvention  was  to  favor  these  cities  at  the 
expense  of  the  country  districts,  was  not  a  valid  one.  In  the  first  place, 
the  denser  population  of  the  cities  caused  a  large  number  of  cases  neces- 
sitating relief  to  occur  in  those  cities;  and,  in  the  second  place,  many 
of  the  people  who  received  aid  within  the  cities  had  but  recently  come 
from  the  smaller  towns  and  the  rural  parts  of  the  state.173 

W8  Board  of  Public  Charities,  Report  (1872),  p.  6. 

170  Idem,  pp.  6-7. 

171  Idem,  pp.  7-8. 

172  Ibid. 

178  Idem,  p.  8. 


132  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

It  is  evident  that  all  the  arguments  advanced  by  the  general  agent 
in  favor  of  subventions  to  privately  owned  and  managed  institutions 
are  beside  the  point,  saving  only  the  fallacious  argument  that  the  state 
should  care  for  the  wards  of  the  state.  Everyone  would  probably 
concede  that  wherever  private  benevolence  fails  properly  to  care  for 
orphaned  children,  the  public  authorities  should  come  to  their  assistance. 
The  next  question  is  whether  the  commonwealth  or  one  of  the  local  gov- 
ernmental agencies  should  undertake  the  work.  This  the  agent  failed 
to  discuss  in  any  adequate  manner.  He  merely  assumed  that  the  locali- 
ties could  not  be  induced  properly  to  perform  the  service. 

It  may  be  granted,  for  the  sake  of  the  argument,  that  the  common- 
wealth should  assume  responsibility  for  the  service.  But  it  by  no 
means  follows  that  if  it  does  assume  this  responsibility,  the  best  method 
of  administration  of  the  service  is  to  turn  it  over  to  self-appointed  in- 
dividuals and  voluntary  organizations,  whose  expenses  are  in  part 
defrayed  out  of  the  public  treasury.  Two  other  methods  of  administra- 
tion were  open:  The  state  might  have  maintained  its  own  institutions 
or  it  might  have  aided  those  established  by  the  counties  or  towns.  By 
passing  quickly  over  the  question  of  the  method  of  administration  and 
by  laying  much  stress  upon  the  obligation  of  the  state  to  protect  and 
educate  needy  children,  the  agent  made  it  appear  that  the  state  was 
under  high  moral  obligation  to  assist  private  orphanages.  The  influence 
of  the  board  at  this  time  was  decidedly  in  favor  of  augmenting  the  sub- 
ventions to  private  charitable  institutions. 

Although  the  legislature  had  failed  to  limit  and  to  systematize  the 
appropriations  to  private  institutions,  and  although  the  board  of  chari- 
ties became  the  advocate  of  more  liberal  subventions,  opposition  to 
the  state's  policy  in  this  regard  continued  to  grow.  Precisely  what  was  the 
source  of  this  opposition  has  not  been  determined,  but  it  was  represented 
by  a  group  of  vigorous  and  able  men  in  the  convention  that  met  in  1872 
to  revise  the  constitution  of  the  state.  Among  the  reforms  expected 
of  this  convention  was  the  limitation  of  the  power  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly. The  limitations  expected  were  of  two  sorts:  limitation  of  the  power 
to  pass  special  legislation  relative  to  local  government,  and  limitation 
of  the  power  to  spend  money. 

In  this  connection  we  shall  discuss  only  those  sections  of  the  new 
constitution  that  dealt  with  appropriations  to  private  institutions. 
The  first  restrictive  section174  provided  that  no  appropriations  except 

174  Art.  Ill,  Sec.  15.     See  Thorpe's  Federal  and  State  Constitutions,  V.,  p.  3128. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  133 

for  the  expenses  of  the  legislative,  executive,  and  judicial  departments, 
for  the  common  schools,  and  for  the  interest  on  the  public  debt  should 
be  included  in  the  general  appropriation  bill.  The  object  of  this  sec- 
tion was,  undoubtedly,  to  prevent  the  inclusion  of  small  appropriations 
of  doubtful  merit  in  the  same  bill  with  the  important  appropriations 
for  the  support  of  the  state  government.  During  the  period  after  the 
Civil  War  small  grants  to  charities  were  sometimes  passed  in  that  manner. 
Section  15,  Article  III,  has  effectually  eliminated  this  evil. 

Another  section  of  the  same  article175  dealt  more  directly  with  the 
question  of  subventions.  It  provided  that  "No  appropriation  shall  be 
made  to  any  charitable  or  educational  institution  not  under  absolute 
control  of  the  Commonwealth,  other  than  normal  schools  established 
by  law  for  the  professional  training  of  teachers  for  the  public  schools 
of  the  state,  except  by  a  vote  of  two-thirds  of  all  the  members  elected 
to  each  House."  This  section  does  not  apply  to  the  subvention  to 
common  schools  since  the  schools  were  under  the  control  of  the  local 
governments,  which  is  equivalent  as  far  as  this  provision  is  concerned, 
to  state  control.  It  is  obvious  that  this  section,  which  is  in  force  at 
the  present  time,  requires  any  appropriation  bill  that  makes  a  subvention 
to  a  private  charitable  or  educational  institution  to  secure  a  vote  of  two- 
thirds  of  the  membership  of  each  house  in  the  General  Assembly.  It 
was  undoubtedly  supposed  that  only  the  more  meritorious  institutions 
could  command  so  large  a  majority,  and,  therefore,  that  the  total  amount 
of  the  grants  would  be  reduced  and  that  only  institutions  of  state-wide 
importance  would  receive  appropriations.  It  was  also  believed  that 
to  require  so  large  a  majority  would  prevent  log-rolling  and  corrupt 
practices  in  the  passage  of  these  appropriation  bills. 

The  debate  on  this  section  brings  out  these  points  very  clearly. 
Statements  of  the  delegates  not  only  prove  the  intention  of  the  conven- 
tion, but  also  throw  considerable  light  on  the  opinions  then  prevalent 
as  to  the  manner  in  which  the  grants  were  obtained.  One  delegate 
stated  very  frankly  that  in  the  past  the  treasury  had  been  at  the  mercy 
of  combinations  of  local  interests  and  that  he  favored  the  section  as  a 
means  for  making  such  combinations  ineffectual.176  Charges  of  corruption 
were  frequent.  One  member  said,  "It  is  necessary  to  stop  this  corrup- 
tion at  Harrisburg  in  granting  these  appropriations  to  hospitals  and 

175  Sec.  17,  Art.  III. 

176  Thus  Mr.  H.  G.  Smith,  Convention  to  Amend  the  Constitution  (1872-73), 
Debates, U,p.645, col  1. 


134  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

sectarian  schools."177  Another  delegate  in  speaking  of  the  Marine 
Hospital  (at  Erie),  which  was  located  in  his  own  county,  said,  "It  was 
not  because  an  institution  of  that  kind  was  specially  wanted  there,  but 
because  we  were  then  represented  in  the  legislature  by  one  who  cared 
more  for  carrying  out  his  own  opinions  than  serving  the  best  interests 
of  his  constituents.  And  in  this  instance  it  happened  that  a  friend  in 
Erie  made  some  money  and  cheap  glory  out  of  it.  ...  "178  It  was 
also  alleged  that  some  of  these  institutions  were  "got  up  only  to  make 
positions  for  somebody  and  to  make  a  splurge  in  the  world.  "179 

It  is,  of  course,  not  certain  what  the  delegate  who  charged  that  "  cor- 
tuption"  was  used  to  obtain  the  appropriations,  had  in  mind.  But 
others  were  more  specific.  One  member  of  the  convention  asserted 
that  agents  had  been  hired  to  go  to  Harrisburg  to  lobby  for  the  subven- 
tion bills;180  while  another  said  that  to  his  knowledge  money  had  been 
used  directly  to  "engineer"  at  least  one  appropriation  bill  of  this  sort.181 
On  the  other  hand,  Ex-Governor  Curtin  vehemently  denied  that  bribery 
had  played  an  important  part  hi  securing  the  appropriations.182  The 
apparent  willingness  of  many  members  to  vote  for  all  the  subventions, 
good  and  bad  alike,  was,  of  course,  not  due  to  their  having  been  corrupted 
by  money  payments.  Many  of  the  subventions  were  too  small  to  be 
divided  in  this  way  and  it  is  scarcely  conceivable  that  a  majority  of  the 
legislature  could  have  been  bribed  to  vote  for  so  many  bills.  The  best 
explanation  of  the  support  given  bills  of  this  sort  was  set  forth  by  Mr. 
McCandless  in  the  Senate  in  1864.  A  bill  making  an  appropriation  to  a 
privately  owned  asylum,  which  was  located  in  Mr.  McCandless'  district, 
was  before  the  Senate.  In  the  course  of  debate,  that  gentleman  de- 
clared that  he  would  willingly  vote  against  the  measure  if  the  Senate 
would  adhere  to  a  resolution  not  to  make  any  more  appropriations  to 
local  chartity .  But  on  the  other  hand,  if  they  would  not  make  and  adhere 
to  such  a  resolution,  he  could  not  oppose  an  appropriation  to  an  institu- 

177  Mr.  W.  H.  Smith,  Convention  to  Amend  the  Constitution  ( 1872-73),  Debates, 
II,  p.  681,  col.  1. 

178  Mr.  Walker,  of  Erie  County,  idem,  II,  p.  647,  col.  2. 

179  Mr.  Lilly,  idem,  II,  p.  637,  col.  2. 

180  Mr  Lilly,  idem,  II,  p.  638,  col.  1. 

181  Mr.  W.  H.  Smith,  Idem,  II,  p.  638,  col.  2,  and  p.  639,  col.  1. 

l**Idem,  II,  p.  660,  col.  1.  For  a  statement  in  regard  to  the  political  morality 
of  the  legislature  during  the  sixties,  see  A.  K.  McClure's  account  of  the  manner  in 
which  an  appropriation  of  half  a  million  dollars  for  the  relief  of  persons  who  had  suf- 
fered from  the  border  raids  of  the  confederates,  was  secured.  Old  Time  Notes  of 
Pennsylvania,  II,  p.  178. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  135 

tion  within  his  own  district.183  As  long  as  the  constitution  permitted 
the  subventions  and  the  people  expected  their  representatives  to  "get 
something'*  for  their  districts,  it  was  well-nigh  impossible  to  eliminate 
appropriations  to  undeserving  institutions.  Undoubtedly  it  was  general- 
ly assumed  by  those  not  well  versed  in  the  ways  of  the  politician  that 
section  17  would  make  it  possible  for  the  more  scrupulous  majority  of 
the  legislature  to  put  an  end  to  improper  and  undeserved  grants. 

Section  18  of  Article  III  imposed  further  restrictions  upon  the  power 
of  the  legislature  to  make  subventions  to  privately  owned  and  managed 
institutions.184  This  section  reads,  "No  appropriation,  except  for  pen- 
sions or  gratuities  for  military  services,  shall  be  made  for  charitable, 
educational,  or  benevolent  purposes,  to  any  person  or  community,  nor 
to  any  denomination  or  sectarian  institution,  corporation,  or  associa- 
tion." On  the  face  of  it,  this  section  would  seem  absolutely  to  prohibit 
subventions  or  grants  to  an  institution  controlled  by  a  religious  organiza- 
tion engaged  in  charitable,  educational,  or  benevolent  undertakings. 

Debate  on  this  section  showed  that  the  proponents  of  the  prohibition 
had  chiefly  in  mind  grants  to  orphanages  and  hospitals  controlled  by 
the  church.185  One  delegate  stated  specifically  that  the  state  subventions 
to  religious  charities  were  bringing  the  churches  into  politics,  and  that 
the  result  was  extravagance  in  appropriations,  since  attempts  were  natur- 
ally made  to  satisfy  the  demands  of  all  denominations  and  sects.186 

A  further  reason  advanced  for  the  support  of  this  section  was  that 
the  state  subvention  was  discouraging  private  contributions  to  charitable 
institutions.  It  was  alleged  that  private  philanthropists  no  longer  felt 
that  there  was  a  distinct  and  separate  field  for  their  activities  and  that 
private  institutions  came  to  rely  more  and  more  upon  state  support.187 

Sections  17  and  18  did  not,  of  course,  pass  the  convention  without 
opposition.  Very  few  of  the  delegates  ventured  to  deny  that  many 
abuses  existed,  that  apropriations  were  frequently  misused,  and  that 
the  legislature  should  be  more  careful  in  making  the  subventions,  but  the 
sections  were  opposed  by  those  averse  to  limiting  too  closely  the  powers 

183  Legislative  Record,  p.  817. 

184  Thorpe's  Constitutions,  V,  p.  3128. 

186  See  general  statements  by  Mr.  Bartholemew,  Convention  to  Amend  the  Con- 
stitution (1872-1873),  Debates,  II,  p.  676,  col.  1;  by  Mr.  Dallas,  idem,  II,  p.  686,  col- 
1 ;  and  by  Mr.  Newlin,  idem,  II,  p.  686,  col.  2. 

186  Mr.  D.  N.  White,  idem,  II,  p.  688,  col.  1. 

187  Mr.  D.  N.  White,  idem,  II,  p.  688,  col.  1;  and  Mr.  Bartholemew,  idem,  II,  p. 
676, cols,  land 2. 


136  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

of  the  General  Assembly.188  It  was  also  denied  that  the  subventions 
were  chiefly  of  local  benefit,  for,  although  the  institutions  were  located 
in  the  large  cities,  they  received  people  from  much  wider  areas.189  Final- 
ly, it  was  denied  that  the  subventions  tended  to  discourage  private  bene- 
volence.190 On  this  last  point  no  evidence  of  a  substantial  character 
was  introduced  either  by  the  opponents  or  advocates  of  the  subventions. 
And,  although  there  has  been  much  discussion  of  the  subject  in  recent 
years,  no  comprehensive  investigation  of  the  accounts  of  a  large  number 
of  institutions,  which  would  prove  or  disprove  the  assertion,  has  ever 
been  made. 

Section  19,  Article  III,  deals  briefly  with  appropriations  for  the 
support  of  soldiers'  widows  and  orphans.191  It  permits  grants  to  private 
institutions  that  assist  either  of  these  special  classes,  but  the  moneys  so 
appropriated  must  be  used  directly  for  the  support  of  such  beneficiaries 
and  not  for  the  general  purposes  of  the  institutions. 

The  period  1844  to  1873  witnessed  only  a  very  slight  development 
of  the  subvention  to  charitable  institutions  before  the  year  1860.  Be- 
cause of  the  necessity  for  economy  in  state  finance  there  was  no  oppor- 
tunity to  make  large  appropriations  for  charity.  With  the  Civil  War, 
however,  came  a  great  increase  in  the  number  and  amount  of  these  sub- 
ventions. The  causes  contributing  to  this  increase  were  the  needs  arising 
out  of  the  war,  the  increase  of  state  revenue,  the  elaboration  of  govern- 
ment, the  development  of  political  interests  that  found  the  subventions 
useful  for  accomplishing  their  purposes,  and  the  growth  of  a  public 
opinion  which  demanded  appropriations  for  local  purposes.  For  the 
most  part  the  subventions  were  made  in  a  haphazard  manner  without 
serious  attempts  on  the  part  of  the  legislature  to  determine  the  total 
amount  or  its  distribution  in  accordance  with  rational  principles.  State 
audit  and  control  of  the  amounts  appropriated  were  almost  entirely 
absent.  Although  a  majority  of  the  legislature  was  favorable  to  the 
increase  of  the  subventions,  many  members  regarded  the  growth  of  these 
appropriations  as  undesirable  in  its  effects  upon  state  finance,  upon  some 
of  the  institutions  subsidized,  and  upon  the  distribution  of  the  burden 
of  taxation  among  the  communities  of  the  state.  The  opposition  to  the 
subventions  resulted  in  the  insertion  of  certain  prohibitions  into  the 

188  Mr.  Wayne  MacVeagh,  idem,  II,  p.  636,  col.  2;  and  Mr.  Hunsicker,  idem,  II, 
p.  661,  col.  1. 

189  Mr.  Darlington,  idem,  II,  p.  638,  cols.  1  and  2. 

190  Mr.  Darlington,  ibid. 

191  Thorpe's  Constitutions,  V,  p.  3128. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  137 

new  constitution  in  1873,  which,  it  was  hoped,  would  eliminate  all  but 
the  least  objectionable  of  these  grants. 

MISCELLANEOUS  SUBVENTIONS,  1844  to  1873 

Subventions  during  this  period  for  purposes  other  than  those  of  educa- 
tion and  charity  were  of  no  significance,  and  Table  II,  Appendix,  shows 
that  only  small  amounts  were  expended  for  other  services.  These 
appropriations  were  chiefly  for  the  benefit  of  the  State  Agricultural 
Society  and  the  Colonization  Society  and  for  the  assistance  of  the  grow- 
ers of  silk  worms.  But  so  small  were  they  in  amount  that  it  cannot  be 
said  that  the  state  pursued  any  definite  policy  toward  the  organizations 
receiving  them.  The  amount  paid  to  them  is  to  be  regarded  as  inciden- 
tal and  unavoidable  leakage  from  the  state  treasury. 


CHAPTER  VI 
THE  RELATION  OF  STATE  AND  LOCAL  FINANCES,  1874  TO  1916 

THE  DISTRIBUTION  OF  GOVERNMENTAL  FUNCTIONS 

Changes  in  the  number  and  importance  of  the  services  performed  by 
the  state  and  local  governments  during  this  period  were  of  three  sorts. 
Old  functions  of  both  state  and  local  governments  were  elaborated  and 
made  more  efficient.  New  types  of  service  were  devised,  which  were 
sometimes  added  to  the  functions  of  the  state  and  sometimes  to  those 
of  the  localities.  Finally,  certain  duties  were  transferred  from  the  local 
to  the  state  government. 

A  contemporary  account  of  the  functions  of  local  governments,  pub- 
lished in  1885,  points  out  that  while  the  services  performed  by  the  locali- 
ties were  few  and  simple  they  were,  on  the  other  hand,  relatively  onerous. 
To  the  townships  were  committed  the  care  of  roads  and  bridges,  the 
maintenance  of  schools,  and  the  support  of  the  poor.1  But,  under  certain 
conditions,  the  county  was  obliged  to  assist  the  townships  in  building 
bridges,2  and  in  a  few  cases  the  county  and  not  the  township  assumed  the 
burden  of  poor  relief.  Moreover,  the  state  shared  with  the  localities 
(township  or  county)  the  burden  of  caring  for  indigent  defectives.3 

The  counties,  at  this  time,  were  charged  with  the  support  of  the 
courts,  except  that  the  state  paid  the  salaries  of  all  judges  learned  in  the 
law  but  apparently  not  the  salaries  of  lay  judges,  nor  of  police  magis- 
trates. The  cost  of  maintaining  prisons  and  workhouses  for  the  deten- 
tion of  persons  convicted  of  minor  offenses  was  also  a  county  or  municipal 
charge.  In  addition,  each  county  was  required  to  pay  the  expense  of 
maintaining  all  criminals  committed  to  the  state  penitentiaries  from 
within  its  borders.  The  state  paid  only  the  overhead  expense  of  main- 
taining the  prisons.  Other  functions  of  the  county  government  were  the 
assessment  and  collection  of  local  taxes  and  of  certain  state  taxes,  and  the 
supervision  of  general  and  local  elections.  It  should  also  be  noted  that 

1  James,  E.  J.  The  Public  Economy  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania, 
Wharton  School  Annals  of  Political  Science,  No.  1.  (1885),  p.  58. 

2  Idem,  p.  59. 
•/&#. 

138 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  139 

the  state  required  the  localities  to  bear  the  expense  of  maintaining  their 
indigent  insane  in  the  state  hospitals.4 

In  1885,  therefore,  the  greater  part  of  the  most  burdensome  functions 
of  government  was  borne  by  the  localities.  Professor  James,  in  the 
article  cited,  pointed  out  that  the  total  state  expenditure  for  general 
purposes  was,  in  1882,  about  $5,000,000,5  while  in  the  same  year  the 
counties  levied  a  tax  of  $15,000,000  and  the  school  districts  one  of 
$6,000,000.  These  figures  did  not  include  township  levies  for  purposes 
other  than  the  support  of  the  schools.  Roughly  estimated,  total  local 
expenditures  must  have  amounted  to  more  than  $25,000,000.6 

The  principal  financial  obligations  of  the  state  at  this  time  arose  from 
its  performance  of  the  following  functions:  (1)  the  establishment  and 
maintenance  of  prisons  and  asylums;  (2)  the  maintenance  of  the  general 
governmental  functions  performed  by  the  governor,  the  legislature,  the 
auditor  general,  etc.;  (3)  the  administration  of  justice;  (4)  the  military. 

Since  1885  the  tendency  has  been  for  the  state  to  take  over  certain 
services  performed  by  the  localities.  Thus  the  recent  reports  of  the 
Auditor  General  show  large  expenditures  for  state  hospitals  for  injured 
miners,  for  state  dispensaries  and  sanitoria,  for  uniform  primary  elec- 
tions, for  the  state  police  system,  and  for  the  construction  and  main- 
tenance of  state  highways.7  In  addition  to  these  important  charges  the 
state  has  undertaken  a  number  of  minor  services.8  Apparently  the 
localities  have  thus  been  relieved  of  a  part  of  the  services  which  they 
regularly  performed  in  1885.  But  it  must  not  be  inferred  that  the  real 
burden  of  local  government  was  less  in  1916  than  in  1885;  for  the  ser- 
vices which  the  state  has  taken  over  are  mostly  developments  of  the  last 
thirty  years.  Furthermore,  such  services  as  education,  road  building 
and  maintenance,  sanitation,  charitable  relief,  recreation,  and  police 
have  undergone  tremendous  elaboration  within  the  same  period,  and  the 
state  has  by  no  means  taken  on  the  responsibility  for  all  these  additions. 

4  James,  E.  J.  The  Public  Economy  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania, 
Whartan  School  Annals  of  Political  Science,  No.  1,  (1885),  p.  60. 
6  Idem,  p.  67. 

6  Idem,  pp.  67-68.     It  is  not  clear  whether  the  writer  intended  to  include  in  this 
estimate  expenditures  of  the  cities  and  the  boroughs. 

7  This  list  is  intended  to  include  only  those  services  which  the  state  administers 
directly.    The  uniform  primaries  are  jointly  administered  by  state  and  locality,  hence 
they  are  partly  state  and  partly  local,  but  no  separation  can,  of  course,  be  made. 

•  Compare  the  "Summary  of  Payments,"  in  the  Reports  of  the  Auditors  General 
for  the  years  1885  and  1916. 


140  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  STATE  TAXES  ON  CORPORATIONS 

The  basis  of  the  present  system  of  state  taxes  in  Pennsylvania  is 
found  in  the  act  of  1844.9  This  act  included  or  added  to  all  the  earlier 
taxes  for  state  purposes  and  gave  the  state  a  system  of  taxes  upon  real 
and  personal  estate,  upon  the  stock  of  corporations,  on  bank  dividends, 
on  collateral  inheritances,  and  on  county,  municipal,  and  other  local 
government  loans.  During  the  sixteen  years  following  1844,  no  impor- 
tant new  taxes  were  added  to  the  state  revenue  system.  Such  changes 
as  were  made  in  the  rates  of  existing  taxes  or  in  the  manner  of  their 
assessment  were  intended  either  to  increase  state  revenue  or  to  accom- 
plish a  more  equitable  distribution  of  the  burden  of  government  among 
taxpayers. 

The  changes  in  the  revenue  system  between  1861  and  1874  involved 
the  introduction  of  several  new  and  important  taxes,  and  the  repeal  of 
the  state  tax  on  real  estate.  Among  the  new  duties,  which  were  either 
corporation  or  special  business  taxes,  were  the  tax  on  the  gross  receipts  of 
private  bankers,10  the  tax  on  the  gross  receipts  of  transportation  com- 
panies,11 the  tax  on  the  net  earnings  of  practically  all  corporations  doing 
business  with  the  state,  transportation  companies  excepted,12  the  tax  on 
traffic  carried  by  transportation  companies,13  the  tax  on  loans  of  private 
corporations,14  and  the  tax  on  the  premiums  of  foreign  insurance  com- 
panies.15 

While  the  state  was  thus  enriching  its  treasury  by  the  invention  of 
tax  burdens  to  be  applied  to  corporate  wealth  and  income,  the  localities 
were  left  with  about  the  same  revenue  resources  as  in  1844.  No  new  local 

9  As  was  pointed  out  in  Chapter  IV,  the  first  special  tax  on  corporations  was  that 
imposed  upon  banks  by  the  act  of  1814  (Act  21  May,  1814,  P.L  p.  169).     In  1840  a 
tax  was  imposed  upon  the  capital  stock  of  corporations  and  jointstock  companies 
(Act  11  June,  1840,  P.L.  pp.  612-614).  The  provisions  of  this  act  were  changed  in  some 
particulars  by  the  act  of  1843  (Act  31  March,  1843,  P.L.  p.  121).     It  should  also  be 
noted  that  a  state  tax  was  imposed  upon  personal  property  in  1831  (Act  25  March, 
1831,  P.L.  pp.  206  ff.).     An  inheritance  tax  for  state  purposes  had  also  been  in  opera- 
tion for  more  than  a  decade  in  1840. 

10  Act  16  May,  1861,  P.L.  p.  708. 

11  Act  23  February,  1866,  P.L.  p.  82. 

»  Sec.  2,  Act  30  April,  1864,  P.L.  pp.  218-219. 

13  Act  30  April,  1864,  P.L.  p.  218. 

14  Act  30  April,  1864,  P.L.  p.  219.    This  tax  was  new  in  the  method  of  assessment. 
The  expedient  of  stoppage  at  the  source  was  substituted  for  assessment  by  local  asses- 
sors.    See  Eastman,  Taxation  in  Pennsylvania,  II,  pp.  686-687. 

14  Sec.  10.  Act  4  April,  1873,  P.L.  p.  26. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  141 

taxes  were  introduced.  In  one  important  respect,  however,  the  locali- 
ties suffered  a  gradual  diminution  of  their  revenue  resources.  When 
the  state  imposed  its  taxes  upon  corporate  wealth  and  income,  it  fre- 
quently exempted  the  property  of  the  corporation  in  whole  or  in  part 
from  local  taxation.16  In  1844,  when  a  state-wide  tax  was  levied  upon 
real  estate  owned  either  by  natural  persons  or  by  corporations,  the 
holdings  of  neither  class  of  owners  were  exempted  from  local  levies. 
But  the  gradual  exemption  of  a  great  part  of  corporate  wealth  from 
local  taxation  in  later  years  caused  the  burdens  of  supporting  local 
government  to  bear  heavily  upon  real  estate  in  the  hands  of  natural 
persons,  and  land  owners  began  to  protest  against  these  arrangements 
and  to  demand  a  readjustment  of  the  burden  of  taxation.  In  1857  the 
Board  of  Revenue  Commissioners  reported  that  real  estate  was  paying 
a  disproportionate  share  of  the  cost  of  state  and  local  government.17 
The  Commission  to  Revise  the  Revenue  Laws  reported  in  1863  that  in 
certain  townships  state  and  local  levies  combined  amounted  to  three 
per  cent  on  the  assessed  value  of  the  real  estate.18  Reports  of  the  Board 
and  of  the  Commission  also  contained  much  evidence  of  gross  inequality 
in  the  assessment  of  the  state  tax  on  real  and  personal  property.  The 
Commission  proposed  that  the  state  increase  corporation  taxes  and 
repeal  the  state  tax  on  real  estate.  These  proposals  were  designed  to 
increase  the  revenue  resources  of  the  local  governments,  and  to  bring 
about  a  more  equitable  division  of  revenue  resources  between  the  state 
and  the  localities.  Furthermore,  the  abolition  of  the  state  tax  on  real 
estate  was  advocated  because  of  the  gross  inequalities  that  prevailed  in 
its  apportionment  among  the  counties.19  These  arguments  seem  to  have 
carried  weight  with  the  General  Assembly  for,  in  1866,  the  state  tax  on 
real  estate  was  repealed.20 

16 As  early  as  1874  at  least  one  state  official  had  pointed  out  the  effect  of  separation 
of  sources.  At  that  time  about  two-third  of  the  state  revenue  was  derived  from  the 
corporation  taxes.  "But  it  should  be  kept  in  mind  that  by  far  the  larger  amount  of 
corporate  wealth  is  not  taxed  at  all  for  county,  city,  school,  road,  or  poor  taxes.  The 
large  state  tax  they  [the  corporations]  pay  is  not  even  a  full  equivalent  for  their  escape 
from  nearly  all  local  taxation. "  Bureau  of  Statistics,  Second  Annual  Report  (1873-74), 
p.  155. 

17  Leg.  Docs.,  (1857),  Report  of  the  Board  of  Revenue  Commissioners,  p.  613. 

18  Leg.  Docs.  (1863),  Report  of  the  Commissioners  to  Revise  the  Revenue  Laws, 
p.  500. 

19  Ibid. 

20  Act  23  February,  1866,  P.L.  p.  83. 


142  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

The  demands  of  the  agricultural  interests  had  now  been  satisfied  and 
for  nearly  two  decades  no  serious  complaints  of  a  lack  of  revenue  for 
local  purposes  reached  the  legislature.  It  is  pertinent  to  inquire  at  this 
point  whether  at  any  time  during  the  period  1844  to  1866,  land  was  actual- 
ly overburdened,  or  whether  the  movement  which  began  during  the  latter 
'fifties  and  which  resulted  in  the  repeal  of  the  state  tax  in  1866,  was  merely 
the  successful  attempt  of  one  industrial  class  to  escape  a  part  of  its  just 
share  of  taxation. 

The  real  motives  that  determine  the  action  of  deliberative  bodies 
are  always  difficult  to  discover.  Moreover,  the  motives  and  causes  of 
action  paraded  before  the  public  are  often  fictitious.  We  are,  therefore> 
justified  in  inquiring  as  to  the  real  reason  for  the  act  of  1866.  Unfor- 
tunately, complete  evidence  upon  which  to  base  a  history  of  the  bill 
during  its  passage  through  the  legislature  is  not  available.  But  the  state- 
ment of  the  Commission  to  Revise  the  Revenue  Laws  is  the  best  at  hand 
and  that  evidence  is  clearly  to  the  effect  that  the  distribution  of  taxation, 
as  it  existed  in  1863,  was  unjust  to  the  owners  of  real  estate. 

During  the  years  1868  to  1879,  the  tendency  was  to  lighten  the  tax 
burdens  of  the  corporations.21  The  table  on  page  143  which  has  been 
compiled  from  the  reports  of  the  Auditors  General  shows  the  receipts  by 
the  state  from  corporation  taxes  for  the  eleven  years  1868  to  1879,  inclusive. 

The  table  emphasizes  the  points  made  by  the  Auditor  General.  In 
1873  the  total  yield  of  the  taxes  upon  corporations  was  $4,901,600, 
while  in  1879  it  was  but  $3,282,400.  On  the  other  hand,  it  must  not 
be  concluded  that  the  repeal  of  some  provisions  of  the  tax  law  and  the 
modification  of  others  was  solely  responsible  for  this  decline  in  produc- 
tivity. The  great  industrial  depression  which  followed  the  crisis  of 
1873,  and  which  reduced  the  earnings  of  many  corporations  and  forced 
others  into  bankruptcy,  doubtless  caused  some  falling  off  in  receipts 
from  these  taxes.  The  decline  in  the  yield  of  the  tax  on  capital  stock 
from  1876  to  1879  is,  however,  attributable  to  modifications  made  by 
the  law  of  1877.22 

During  the  years  1880  to  1889  the  yield  of  the  various  taxes  upon 
corporations  increased,  but  such  augmentation  as  occurred  scarcely 
brought  it  back  to  the  level  it  had  reached  during  the  years  1871  to  1873. 

21  In  1878,  the  Auditor  General  was  of  the  opinion  that,  with  the  exception  of 
the  coal  and  insurance  companies,  corporations  were,  in  general,  less  heavily  taxed 
than  in  the  years  prior  to  1868.     Report  (1878),  p.  4. 

22  Aud.  Gen.  Report  (1879),  p.  3. 


1 

I 

1 

en 

Coal  Companies  
National  Bank  Stock  
Commutation  of  Tonnage  Tax  
Premiums  on  Charters  of  Corporat 
Tax  on  Premiums  and  Licenses  of 
eign  Insurance  Agencies  
Bank  Stock  
Bank  Dividends  
Gross  Premiums  of  Domestic  Insui 
Cos.... 

1  1  B  1  & 

8?i&l 

|1  r| 

:       HH    '• 

':       &           : 

i 

O     '•                     2     en     : 
<T>     :              :        i      :       : 

Co 
§ 

to                  Co    to    i—    Co    Co    4> 

:       to           ON    ON    >—  '    NO    O   OO    4^ 

to   O 
Cn    ON 
to   -£• 

i 

4i.           Cn   O    <VO    4^    <s*    NO    00   NO    H-* 

Co 

NO 

to                  Co    i—  »    i—  '   to   Co   Co 

:       ON           ON    O*    OO    Cn    NO    ^J   >—  ' 
:       ON          <^   ^^   «*vj   NO   Co    H^   ^^ 
:       :       ks          ^   O   to   ON   O   NO   NO 

to  "0 

Jo    Co 

S  S 

i 

Co 

1 

bo 

to   to                Co   :      to   4>  Co   Co 
OO-»J-          CnON:       CnO^OvO 

Co    NO   "NO           O   O   :       Ko    Cn    O    to 

to  "to 
Cn    Co 

00 

o 

| 

Mi 

to  Co               Co  :      H-  ' 
•^J   Co           Oo    ON   :       ON 
to    Co   to           Cn   O   :       Co 
Cn    vO   NO           to    O   i       OO 

4*   ^   Co 

N-t      QS       VO 

^»   Cn    4^ 

ON    Cn 

H-k 

00 

Cn 

NO 

to    Co           i-k    Co 
ON    Cn           ^^    ON 

isgfeii 

s 

to 

Co    O    4^           ON    O 

£fc     \O     I-*     O     '^     O 

I* 

1 

ON 

Cn 

to  Co               to 

:        00    Cn           ON    Co 

OO    Co           OO    O 
:       H-    In           Co    O 

Co    Co   ^J   4> 
Co    OO    NO    4=>- 
ON    Cn    Cn    ON 
4x    4*.   to   Co 

Cn    4- 

OO     H-» 

H-»    Cn 
Co    ON 

00 
Co 

Co 

lo 

Cn 

ON 

O   NO           Cn    NC 
:       Cn   to          ON   O 

ON    Co    ^I    00 
10    O    NO    NO 

si 

I 

:       H-k    OO           Cn   O 

^r  NO  to   to 

O   i— 

Co 

OO    Cn           4^.   ON 
Cn   ON           ON    O 

Cn           >-* 

tO    tO    tO    ON 

H*    t-k   H-»   Cn 

to 

4>   Co 
4^   Cn 

OO 
Cn 

Cn 

:       ^I   Cn           O    O 

•<!   Cn    NO    »-*    to    ON 

j>J 

io 

:       O   4^           Co    ON 
:        10    ON            Cn    O 

Cn 

to 

j       £ 

JO 

^S 

OO 

£i 

:       -4  NO          h-   O 

O 

:      to 

NO     CO 

„*> 

bo 

;        NO    ^^            to    ON 
4-    O!            Cn    O 
:       Co   NO          to    O 

fe          ^4, 
to   H*   to   Cn 

OO    Cn    Co    ON 

to 

ON 
Co 

oo 

J>J 

ON 

:      to   to                4^ 
Jj          :      Cn  to          to   C£ 

g 

4^   Co 

"Co 

£ 

00 
00 

4^-                 to   to          Co   O 

to 

p».    ON    10 

Co 

Co 

fe 

to 

--    —                   4- 

£      i    3£      £§ 

Cn 

Cn 

i 

1 

-4  00         :      H-  *4         H-*  O  :      O 

Cn   00 

'-v| 

s' 


5  H 

I  w 

o  c/3 

1  1 


S 


144  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

The  variations  in  the  yield  of  the  principal  taxes  paid  by  corporations 
during  this  decade  are  set  forth  in  the  table  on  page  145. 

The  decade  1880  to  1890  was  not  marked  by  important  tax  legislation 
until  near  its  close.  But  about  the  middle  of  the  period  an  agitation  for 
heavier  taxes  upon  corporations  sprang  up.  In  1885,  in  his  biennial 
message  to  the  legislature,  Governor  Pattison  asserted  that  real  estate 
was  paying  too  great  a  proportion  of  the  total  cost  of  supporting  state, 
county  and  local  governments.23  The  inequity  arose  out  of  the  almost 
complete  exemption  of  corporate  wealth  from  local  taxation.  Corpora- 
tions paid  the  greater  part  of  the  state  taxes,  but  local  taxation  upon 
real  estate,  especially  farm  real  estate,  was,  the  governor  believed,  four 
tunes  as  burdensome  as  the  state  taxes  upon  corporations.24  The  gover- 
nor recommended  that  the  personal  property  tax  and  certain  license  taxes 
levied  by  the  state  be  turned  back  to  the  localities  and  that  the  state 
raise  all  its  revenues  from  the  corporation  taxes.25  In  1887  Governor 
Pattison  reiterated  the  recommendations  made  in  his  message  two  years 
earlier.26  In  the  message  of  1887  the  governor  referred  to  the  insistent 
agitation  of  the  agricultural  interest  for  a  more  equitable  adjustment  of 
taxation  and  advised  that  heavier  taxes  be  imposed  upon  corporations 
and  that  real  estate  be  further  relieved  of  the  burden  of  supporting  local 
government.27 

The  result  of  the  demand  for  readjustment  of  tax  burdens  was  the  ser- 
ies of  laws  passed  during  the  years  1889  to  1893,  which  increased  the 
taxes  paid  to  the  state  by  corporations  and  by  personal  property.  These 
laws  also  provided  for  the  return  of  a  part  of  the  revenue  from  the  per- 
sonal property  tax  to  the  localities  in  which  it  originated  and  for  the 
transfer  of  the  proceeds  of  certain  retail  liquor  licenses  to  the  local 
authorities.28  The  effect  of  these  laws  was  greatly  to  increase  the  yield 
of  the  corporation  taxes  as  is  shown  by  the  table  on  page  146. 

23  Pennsylvania  Archives,  IV  Ser.  X,  pp.  233  ff. 

"Idem,  p.  234. 

25  Idem,  p.  235. 

*  Idem,  pp.  488-490. 

a7  Idem,  p.  490. 

"See  Sec.  16,  Act  1  June,  1889,  P.  L.  p.  426;  Act.  9  June,  1S91,  P.  L.  pp. 
248-249;  Act  8  June,  1891,  P.  L.  pp.  229-243;  Aud.  Gen.  Report  (1891),  p  iii. 


•«      «*      - 

fofi^L 

^  o  n  o  ^  o  o 
3  p  g  3  J|  P 

**    **    p> 

H 

w  S  ?  ?  3-  ?  P 

1  1  1  s  §  1  S 

o 

8    •  r   I 

§  §'  1  •§•  <g  ^  R- 

il  years  endin 
s  tax  on  mun 
s  a  small  amc 

i  f? 

P  a  5'  F  s  1 

!f  if; 

tf 

M 

1 

ifi 

§  y 

1  ^     1      1 

i 

8*1 

3     :       in     w 

LLLLsJ 

?  i      i      i 

3 

^11 

y 

l  . 

M 

O           n 

GO     t—  . 

4k    OO    ON 

|  . 

3 

a      r^-     GO 

^ 

Go           Go    NO           Go 
ON            NO    ON            4k 

S    ti    o2    ^    On"    ^ 

g° 

f 

GO 

b  I-»  bo  4k  to  'NO 

° 

1 

ff 

4k 

,_» 

S 

S, 

i 

to           Go    to 

4^           Go    O           On 

g  g  g  g  ^  S 

OO 
00 

< 

1 

On 

GO           to    Go            H* 

b  ON  b  I-*  b  NO 

g 

?   > 

^ 

4k 

£ 

GO    tO            t-» 
Go            On    Go            Go 

—  * 

00 

oo 

—   ^ 

o       ^ 
1       H 

O 

J-» 

i-           to    NO           b 

^J      *^J     *^4     Q>0      UO      hfk 

to 

§       H 

3 

fr     H 

^0 

0        ^ 

B 

J>i 

H^ 

S.      M 

i 

* 

^ 

Go    to           i-» 
Go           ON    On           O 
NO           On   On           —  r 

•*—•           OO                  On 
ON            GO    On    H-  '    Go 

h-  k 

g      fe 

ON 

ON           On    ^           b 

O    H*    ON   J-»    NO   J-k 

Go 

S"    S 

Ki 

c*» 

3      fc> 

•&         Ki 

^ 

>j 

>—  k 

^N 

a 

&' 
a 

g 
O 

Go  to 

Go            —I    00           OO 
ON    ON           Go    On           >£- 

ON            OO    —  *           GO 
O           —Ji—'           On 

b  bo  NO  ON        —  ^ 

N* 

>c 

s 

n 

o 

*— 

to 

i. 

? 

! 

Go           ON    O            00 
On  to          bo   to          to 

4k  :      NO               "o 
O>    :       i-»    ON           Go 
O  :       Go  Go          —  J 

O   :       Go   bo          ON 

i 

Cn 

g 

^< 

H-] 

§ 

4k 

1-                            H* 

§ 

C/3 

^J 

4k   Oo          H* 

4k                        ^tO                                           ^—  I 

^^ 

*2 

1 

- 

;     £       £  !£       \o 

:       to          NO   NO          >-• 

S            i-»    ON            to 

O           O    00    »-»    NO 

b       ON  '-»  o  b 

1 

mC\ 

H 

p 

X 

D 
On 
j\ 

4k     GO               1— 

4^          Go   -I          4> 
h-»   to          •—   -<r          Oo 

&    :       —  J   OO   Go   O 
O   :       ON   H*   Oo   to 

1 

i—  * 

'""* 

O    ON           ON    ON           ON 

O    :       4k    ON   ON   J— 

*—  » 

4k 
§ 

6      ££      £ 

ON            OO    OO    Go    H-* 
O           Go    00    00    4k 

00 

oo 
1 

0 

vO          H-   bo           4k 

O           ON    O    4k   bo 

£ 

g 

4k            ON    —  J           ON 
:       NO          NO   4k          4k 

&           (-»    —  J   O    On 
O           —  »   i-*    Go    to 

oo 

i 

0 

:       NO          NO   Go          ON 

O  :       Go   —J  On  bo 

146 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 


RECEIPTS  AT  THE  PENNSYLVANIA  STATE 

TREASURY  FROM  CORPORATION  TAXES,  1890-18951 

(in  thousands  of  dollars) 


Tax 

1890 

1891 

1892 

1893 

1894 

1895 

Capital  Stock  
Corporate  Loans  
Net  Earnings  or  Income  
Gross  Receipts  
Commutation  of  Tonnage  Tax 

1,935.4 
541.5 
100.4 

513.8 
865  7 

2,378.9 
1,289.2 
68.4 
696.2 

2,211.1 
682.7 
70.9 
563.2 

3,544.9 
769.2 
79.7 
542.1 

3,635.6 
1,188.9 
78.1 
775.8 

3,537.8 
822.4 
83.1 
598.5 

Premiums  on   Charters  of  Cor- 
porations   
Foreign  Insurance  Companies  
Bank  Stock  
Gross  Premiums  of  Domestic  In- 
surance Companies  

168.7 
354.0 
413.4 

45.6 

243.8 
395.3 
413.2 

55.0 

242.0 
421.8 
535.7 

46.9 

244.1 
463.3 
530.2 

60.4 

215.2 
495.8 
511.1 

55.8 

241.8 
513.6 
514.1 

51.0 

Total 

49385 

55400 

47743 

6  233.9 

6,956.3 

6,362.3 

1  Reports  of  Auditors  General  for  years  indicated, 
ember  30. 


Fiscal  years  ending  Nov- 


The  state  system  of  taxation  has  undergone  no  important  modifica- 
tion in  recent  years.29  By  far  the  greater  part  of  the  revenue  receipts 
is  derived  from  the  taxation  of  corporations.  Thus  in  1914,  out  of  a 
total  of  $31,114,94930  received  at  the  state  treasury,  $21,371,287  was 
derived  from  taxes,  fees,  and  penalties  paid  by  private  corporations 
and  associations.  Of  this  amount,  $11,765,135  was  derived  from  the 
tax  on  the  capital  stock  of  corporations  exclusive  of  those  engaged  in 
banking  and  building  and  loan  associations.  License  taxes  on  thirteen 
categories  of  business  enterprises  yielded  a  total  of  $3,390,724  and  the 
collateral  inheritance  tax  produced  $2,516,790.  The  remainder  of  the 
total  income  of  the  state,  or  about  $4,000,000,  was  derived  from  a  great 
number  of  sources.  Thus  corporations  paid  taxes,  fees  and  penalties 
amounting  to  about  two-thirds  of  the  total  income  of  the  state. 

29  Exception  should,  of  course,  be  made  for  the  state  tax  on  personal  property. 
The  Act  of  17  June,  1913,  provided  for  the  relinquishment  of  the  tax  on  certain  kinds 
of  property  to  the  localities.     See  infra,  p.  149. 

30  This  figure  represents  the  total  receipts  given  by  the  Auditor  General  less 
$326,101  made  up  of  refunds  and  the  amount  paid  into  the  state  treasury  by  boroughs, 
townships,  and  counties  for  their  share  hi  constructing  permanent  highways.    Aud. 
Gen.  Report  (1914),  pp.  7-9. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  147 

THE  EQUALIZATION  OF  REVENUE  RESOURCES  BETWEEN  THE 
STATE  AND  THE  LOCALITIES 

The  problem  of  making  a  proper  distribution  of  revenue  resources 
between  the  state  and  the  localities,  in  Pennsylvania,  is,  as  was  shown 
in  the  preceding  section,  closely  connected  with  the  problem  of  equalizing 
the  burden  of  taxation  upon  the  different  forms  of  property  and  income. 
This  is  due  to  the  fact  that  since  1866  the  state  and  the  localities  have 
derived  their  revenues  from  different  objects  of  taxation.  At  first  sight 
it  would  appear  that  two  problems  are  involved.  But  a  moment's  con- 
sideration will  show  that  in  Pennsylvania  these  problems  are  practically 
identical.  If  the  localities  need  more  revenue,  their  chief  resource  is 
to  levy  heavier  taxes  on  real  estate.  If  this  process  of  adding  to  the  local 
tax  rate  continues,  the  owners  of  real  estate  are  sure  to  protest  that 
they  are  paying  a  higher  rate  than  other  property  owners.  They  then 
demand  an  equalization.  If,  however,  the  rate  upon  real  estate  is  kept 
equal  to,  or  below  that  imposed  on  other  wealth,  the  local  governments 
must,  assuming  that  they  are  in  actual  need  of  additional  funds,  either 
remain  impoverished  or  have  recourse  to  borrowing.  A  widespread 
demand  for  increased  local  revenues  is  certain  to  be  followed  by  a  demand 
for  equalization  of  the  burden  of  taxation  among  property  owners.  As 
long,  therefore,  as  the  separation  of  state  and  local  revenues  shall  con- 
tinue every  large  increase  in  local  taxation  will  be  accompanied  by  a 
demand  for  equalization.  And  every  attempt  to  increase  local  revenue 
will  mean  a  redistribution  of  the  burden  of  taxation  on  those  kinds  of 
property  that  pay  local  taxes. 

After  the  separation  of  sources,  which  took  place  in  1866,  it  was  in- 
evitable that  such  complications  and  problems  should  arise.  Changes 
in  the  relative  amount  of  work  performed  by  the  state  and  the  localities 
or  changes  in  the  rate  of  growth  of  the  property  taxed  by  the  state  and 
by  the  localities  soon  distrubed  any  arrangements  that  were  made.  And, 
finally,  new  legislation  and  court  decisions  tended  to  produce  the  same 
result. 

As  was  pointed  out  in  the  preceding  section,  the  owners  of  real  estate 
succeeded,  during  the  years  1885  to  1889,  in  gaining  the  support  of  the 
governor  and  of  the  legislature  in  their  demand  for  relief.  But  the 
relief  was,  at  first,  given  only  in  a  limited  way.  In  1887  the  legislature 
turned  over  to  the  localities  a  portion  of  the  proceeds  of  certain  licenses 
for  the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors.  The  revenue  received  by  the  local 
authorities  from  this  source  was  not,  however,  very  large,  amounting 


148  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

to  only  $5,600,448  during  the  years  1888-1891.  In  1891,  however,  these 
licences  were  turned  over  to  the  localities  to  administer,  to  collect,  and 
to  retain  the  revenue,  but  the  rate  of  the  tax  was  fixed  by  state  enact- 
ment. The  yield  was,  in  1892,  about  $3,000,000  annually,  and  even  as 
late  as  1905  it  was  estimated  that  the  total  receipts  from  them  did  not 
exceed  $3,500,000.31  In  later  years  the  state  imposed  additional  license 
taxes  upon  dealers,  but  the  local  taxes  were  not  disturbed. 

The  agitation  for  a  readjustment,  which  continued  throughout  the 
latter  part  of  the  decade  1880  to  1890,  also  resulted,  in  1890,  in  the 
appointment  of  a  commission  to  examine  the  complaints  of  the  owners 
of  real  estate  and  to  work  out  a  revision  of  revenue  laws  for  both  the  state 
and  the  localities.32 

The  introductory  part  of  the  resolution  providing  for  the  commission 
recited  that  the  existing  system  had  worked  injustice  by  exempting  from 
local  taxation  large  amounts  of  both  real  and  personal  property  held  by 
corporations.  It  was  also  asserted  that  there  was  an  "urgent  demand" 
for  reduction  of  taxation  for  local  purposes.  The  resolution  required 
the  commission  to  be  composed  of  the  Auditor  General,  a  representative 
of  the  manufacturing  interests  appointed  by  the  governor,  a  representa- 
tive of  the  mercantile  and  financial  interests  elected  by  the  lower  house 
of  the  General  Assembly,  two  specialists  in  taxation,  one  elected  by  each 
branch  of  the  legislature,  one  representative  selected  by  the  Association 
of  County  Commissioners,  and,  finally,  a  representative  of  the  agricul- 
tural interests  chosen  by  the  State  Grange.33  A  representative  of  the 
laboring  classes  was  added  when  the  commission  was  finally  organized.34 

A  commission  so  constituted  naturally  found  great  difficulty  in  teach- 
ing an  agreement  either  as  to  facts  or  as  to  a  proposal  for  constructive 
legislation.  Furthermore,  since  they  were  poorly  equipped  for  making 
investigations,  little  reliance  can  be  placed  upon  their  findings  as  to  the 
actual  inequality  in  the  distribution  of  the  burden  of  taxation.  Governor 
Beaver  stated  bluntly,  in  1891,  that  the  commission  had  failed  to  produce 
evidence  that  showed  the  degree  of  inequality  actually  existing.35  The 
majority  of  the  commission  agreed  upon  a  bill  which  would  have  brought 
personal  property  and  wealth  owned  by  corporations  within  the  taxing 

31  Compendium  and  Brief  History  of  Taxation,  p.  43. 

32  For  the  legislative  authority  for  the  appointment  of  the  commission  see  Joint 
Resolution  No.  27, 1889,  P.L.  pp.  456-457. 

•Ibid. 

34  Revenue  Commission  (1889),  Report,  p.  6. 

36  Pennsylvania  Archives,  IV  Ser.  X,  p.  879. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  149 

power  of  the  localities,36  but  the  General  Assembly  refused,  in  the  session 
of  1891,  to  follow  the  commission's  recommendations. 

The  same  legislature  that  provided  for  the  appointment  of  the  com- 
mission of  1889  undertook  to  bring  about  a  slight  equalization  of  revenue 
resources  by  providing  for  the  return  of  one-third  of  the  proceeds  of  the 
state  tax  on  personal  property  to  the  counties  or  to  cities  co-extensive 
with  counties.37  But  this  arrangement  did  not  mean  a  very  great  addi- 
tion to  the  resources  of  the  localities.  The  act  provided  that  in  the  future 
the  localities  should  assume  responsibility  for  uncollectible  amounts  due 
for  taxes  upon  personal  property,  for  abatements,  and  for  all  other  expen- 
ses connected  with  the  levy  and  assessment  of  the  tax.38  The  return  of 
one-third  of  the  revenue  was,  therefore,  more  in  the  nature  of  a  payment 
for  the  assumption  of  all  expenses  connected  with  its  levy  and  collection.39 

Although  the  assembly  did  not  pass  the  bill  which  was  recommended 
by  the  commission  of  1889,  additional  relief  was  granted  to  the  localities 
and  to  the  owners  of  real  estate.  The  first  measure  of  relief,  passed  by 
the  legislature  in  1891,  was  the  return  of  three-fourths  of  the  state  tax 
on  personal  property,  which  was  increased  from  three  to  four  mills  on  the 
dollar.40  The  act  also  made  changes  in  the  corporation  tax  calculated 
to  increase  the  revenue  from  that  source.4 1  That  this  arrangement,  which 
obviously  increased  the  local  revenues  without  additional  taxes  on  real 
estate,  was  specifically  designed  to  readjust  the  burdens  of  taxation  is  a 
matter  of  common  knowledge  to  all  who  are  familiar  with  this  portion 
of  the  financial  history  of  the  state.42  No  further  change  was  made  in 
the  distribution  of  the  personal  property  tax  until  1913,  when  the  state 
turned  over  to  the  localities  the  personal  property  tax  on  mortgages, 
money  owed  by  solvent  debtors,  interest-bearing  accounts,  public 
loans,  except  those  exempted  by  law  or  taxed  by  the  state,  shares  of 

88 Pennsylvania  Archives,  IVSer.  X,  p.  879. 

37  Act  1  June,  1889,  P.L,  pp.  420-438,  at  426. 

38  Ibid, 

39  Eastman.     Taxation  in  Pennsylvania,  II,  p.  791.    The  personal  property  tax 
in  Pennsylvania  is  imposed  on  mortgages,  notes,  money  owned  by  solvent  debtors, 
collectable  accounts,  public  loans  except  those  of  the  United  States  and  of  the  state, 
bonds  of  corporations  generally,  certificates  of  indebtedness,  and  stock  of  corporations 
not  subject  to  the  capital  stock  tax.     There  are  numerous  exceptions  to  this  general 
statement.     See  Eastman,  Taxation  in  Pennsylvania,  II,  pp.  772-773. 

40  Act  8  June,  1891,  P.L.  pp.  229  ff. 
"Ibid. 

42  "In  1891,  when  there  appeared  to  be  great  danger  of  the  passage  of  the  'Granger' 
Revenue  Bill,  then  pending,  it  was  agreed,  as  a  sop  to  Cerberus,  to  increase  the  proper- 


150  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

stock  except  those  taxable  by  the  state,  moneys  invested  in  other  states 
or  in  foreign  countries,  other  moneyed  capital  in  the  hands  of  individuals, 
or  annuities  of  over  $200  annually,  and  on  such  conveyances  as  cabs, 
hacks  and  omnibuses.43  The  rate  that  should  be  levied  on  such  property 
was  retained  at  four  mills  on  the  dollar.44  The  state  retained  the  tax 
on  loans  of  private  and  municipal  corporations.45 

It  is  apparent  that  the  method  employed  by  Pennsylvania  since  1887 
to  bring  about  an  equalization  of  revenue  resources  between  the  state 
and  the  localities,  and  to  equalize  the  burden  of  taxation  among  tax 
payers,  has  been  somewhat  similar  to  that  employed  by  Mr.  Goschen  in 
solving  the  same  problem  in  Great  Britain.  In  both  cases  the  central 
government  relinquished  certain  taxes  (or  the  proceeds  of  those  taxes) 
to  the  localities  in  order  to  lighten  the  burden  on  property  subject  to 
local  taxation.  In  Great  Britain  the  assigned  revenues  were  used  to 
make  possible  a  partial  abolition  of  the  grants  in  aid.  In  Pennsylvania, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  subventions  have  increased  more  rapidly  since  the 
period  when  the  adjustment  by  means  of  assigned  revenues  was  made 
than  they  did  before.  In  fact,  it  seems  highly  probable  that  when  the 
"  Granger  "  bill  was  defeated,  in  1891,  it  was  generally  understood  that  the 
subventions  from  the  state  treasury  would  be  increased.46  Numerous 
statements  to  that  effect  have  been  made  in  the  legislature  since  that 
date.  Mr.  Focht,  speaking  in  the  senate  in  1903,  asserted  flatly  that  the 
increases  in  the  school  appropriations,  which  began  at  that  time,  were 
the  result  of  a  compromise  in  the  struggle  between  the  corporations  and 
the  "grangers."47  Again,  in  a  debate  in  the  lower  house,  in  1897,  one 
member  (Mr.  Morrow)  asked  another  member  (Mr.  Farr)  "what  was 
the  object"  of  the  increased  appropriations  to  common  schools  provided 
at  the  session  of  1891.  The  answer  was,  " I  think  the  object  was  to  lessen 
the  burden  of  taxation  in  different  parts  of  the  state.  That  was  the 

tion  fof  the  personal  property  tax]  to  be  returned  to  three-fourths,  which  was  according- 
ly done.  The  one-third  granted  by  the  Act  of  1889  was  given  in  commutation  of 
payments  theretofore  made,  but  the  difference  between  one-third  and  three-fourths, 
given  by  the  Act  of  1891,  was  a  donation."  Eastman,  Taxation  in  Pennsylvania, 
II,  p.  791. 

43  Act  17  June,  1913,  P.L.  pp.  507-519. 

44  Idem,  p.  508. 
« Idem,  p.  516. 

46  The  evidence  of  such  an  understanding  is  not  conclusive.     No  enactment  or 
resolution  of  the  legislature  gave  definite  expression  to  such  a  policy. 

47  Legislative  Record,  1  April,  1903,  p.  2606,  col.  1. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  151 

statement  at  that  time."48  Contemporary  opinion  of  the  effect  of  the 
grants  is  well  expressed  by  Mr.  McCamant,  a  member  of  the  Revenue 
Commission  of  1889,  who  pointed  out  in  his  report  that  the  state  might 
relieve  the  localities  of  some  of  their  financial  burdens  in  two  ways.  In 
the  first  place,  it  might  assume  "a  further  share  of  the  expenses  of  local 
government,"  or  it  might  relinquish  to  the  localities  any  surplus  revenues 
attached  to  the  state  treasury.49 

The  State  Grange  has,  in  recent  years,  consistently  advocated  the 
increase  of  appropriations  for  the  assistance  of  the  local  governments. 
The  policy  is  well  expressed  in  the  followng  excerpt  from  the  report  of 
its  Legislative  Committee  at  the  Annual  Session  of  1904.  "  One  of  the 
foremost  questions  confronting  the  farmers  and  other  real  estate  owners 
is  the  equalization  of  taxation.  The  Grange  has  made  a  steadfast  effort 
to  protect  the  farmers  against  extortion  by  taxation.  It  succeeded  in 
having  the  school  appropriation  increased,  three-fourths  of  the  per- 
sonal property  tax  returned  to  the  counties  and  the  liquor  licenses, 
thus  making  an  annual  saving  to  the  taxpayers  of  the  state  of  over 
$1 2,000,000.  "50  The  final  word  of  the  committee  was  a  demand  that 
the  state  assume  a  larger  proportion  of  the  local  burdens  or  that  it  relin- 
quish additional  objects  of  taxation  to  the  localities.51 

The  Grange  has  also  been  active  in  bombarding  the  legislature  with 
petitions  praying  for  relief  of  " farms  and  homes  of  oppressive  taxation," 
for  the  reduction  of  the  burden  of  local  taxation,  and  for  the  removal 
of  " oppressive  taxation  of  real  estate."52  In  1910  the  Grange  News 
printed  a  communication  which  advocated  the  "Grange  plan"  for 
equalizing  taxation.  This  plan  provided  that  the  state  should  pay  the 
minimum  salary  of  school  teachers  for  the  minimum  term,  pay  one-half 
of  the  local  road  tax  (not  to  exceed  $25.00  per  mile),  build  all  state  roads, 
and  return  to  the  counties  such  taxes  as  were  collected  by  them  for 
state  purposes.53  In  the  following  year  the  legislative  platform  of  the 
Grange  demanded  that  equalization  of  taxation  be  brought  about  by  (1) 
relieving  real  estate  from  taxation  by  increasing  state  appropriations  for 

48  Legislative  Record,  23  March,  1897,  p.  915. 

49  Report,  p.  35. 

60  Grange  News,  vol.  I,  No.  6  (Jan.  1905)  p.  67. 

61  Idem,  p.  68. 

62  See,  for  example,  the  petitions  presented  to  the  legislature  in  1909,  Legislative 
Record,  pp.  4620-4622. 

63  Grange  News,   vol.   VI,    (Mar.  1910)   pp.  165-166.    The   writer  was  a  Mr. 
Arthur  Dennison. 


152  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

local  purposes;  (2)  by  the  payment  of  the  minimum  salary  of  school  teach- 
ers from  the  state  treasury;  (3)  by  an  appropriation  by  the  state  to  the 
townships  that  levied  cash  road  taxes  equal  to  the  amount  of  such  taxes, 
but  not  to  exceed  $25.00  per  mile;  and,  (4)  by  a  strict  enforcement  of 
the  constitutional  provision  for  uniformity  of  taxation.54 

The  effect  of  this  activity  on  the  part  of  the  farmers  cannot,  of  course, 
be  accurately  estimated.  That  it  has  had  some  effect  in  recent  years 
may,  however,  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  the  first  three  proposals 
of  the  Grange  have  been  embodied  in  acts  of  the  legislature. 

The  increase  of  subvention  for  school  purposes  during  the  decade 
1900  to  1910  is  very  marked  as  may  be  seen  from  the  table  on  page 
159.  In  1907,  after  the  passage  of  the  law  providing  a  minimum 
salary  of  forty  dollars  a  month  for  all  teachers,  and  fifty  dollars 
for  experienced  teachers,  the  legislature  provided  for  the  payment  of 
the  extra  burden  thus  placed  upon  the  poorer  districts.56  Furthermore, 
since  1891,  the  state  expenditures  for  subvention  to  local  charitable 
institutions  has  increased  very  rapidly.56  The  assumption  by  the  state 
of  the  cost  of  uniform  primary  elections  also  relieves  the  localities  of  a 
burden  that  might  have  fallen  upon  them. 

The  period  1874  to  1916  witnessed  a  great  increase  in  the  functions 
of  government  in  Pennsylvania  and  the  larger  part  of  the  new  functions 
was  assumed  by  the  localities.  In  addition  old  services  have  been  im- 
proved and  their  performance  has  become  more  costly.  At  the  same 
time,  the  revenue  system  has  continued  to  be  highly  centralized.  With 
the  exception  of  certain  license  taxes  and  the  personal  property  tax, 
the  state  has  retained  all  the  revenue  resources  it  had  acquired  by  1874, 
and  with  the  growth  of  the  industrial  interests  the  corporation  taxes 
have  become  relatively  more  important  than  in  1874.  The  localities 
have  been  restricted  to  taxes  on  real  estate,  on  personal  tax,  and  a  few 
licenses. 

In  order  to  provide  the  large  revenues  necessary  to  carry  on  the  new 
and  elaborate  services  the  state,  rather  than  resort  to  decentralization 
of  its  revenue  system,  has  made  large  subventions  to  the  local  govern- 
ments and  to  eleemosynary  institutions  that  perform  local  services. 
Those  in  authority  have  preferred  this  method  of  equalization  to  de- 
centralization or  to  assigned  taxes.  It  remains  to  be  shown  in  the  suc- 
ceeding chapters  how  the  method  adopted  has  worked  in  practice. 

«4  Grange  News,  vol.  VII,  p.  156. 

66  Supt.  of  Public  Instruction,  Report  (1907),  p.  x.  Cf.  infra,  p.  178. 

18  See  infra,  Chapter  IX. 


CHAPTER  VII 
THE    SUBVENTIONS   FOR    EDUCATION,   1874   TO    1916 

THE  STATE  SYSTEM  OF  COMMON  SCHOOLS  IN  1874 

In  1874  the  state  system  of  common  schools  had  been  in  operation 
for  forty  years.  During  these  four  decades  the  extreme  local  autonomy 
that  marked  the  system  created  by  the  early  laws  had  been  slowly  sup- 
planted by  local  control  with  moderate  state  supervision.  For  the  most 
part  the  supervision  exercised  by  the  state  was  of  the  legislative  rather 
than  of  the  administrative  kind.  In  1848  the  establishment  of  free 
schools  had  been  made  one  of  the  obligatory  duties  of  the  localities.1  In 
1854  the  office  of  county  superintendent  had  been  established  for  the 
purpose  of  weeding  out  incompetent  teachers,  stimulating  professional 
interest  among  those  that  remained,  and  guarding  against  irregularities 
in  district  finances.2  Yet  this  officer  had  little  discretionary  power.  He 
was  only  authorized  to  administer  the  regulations  imposed  by  the  legis- 
lature. Three  years  later  the  office  of  State  Superintendent  of  Common 
Schools  was  separated  from  that  of  Secretary  of  the  Commonwealth 
and  the  supervision  of  the  schools  was  placed  in  the  hands  of  an  inde- 
pendent state  officer  who  was  trained  in  the  administration  of  educational 
institutions  and  who  had  usually  been  an  active  teacher.3  The  office 
was  thus  taken  out  of  politics  and  the  resulting  permanency  of  tenure, 
which  is  a  matter  of  custom,  enabled  the  superintendent  to  outline  and 
to  urge  a  definite  policy  in  his  recommendations  to  the  legislature,  largely 
unhampered  by  political  considerations.4 

The  authority  of  the  state  superintendent  to  compel  district  officers 
to  observe  state  regulations  was  not  very  great.  He  did  not  have  large 
discretionary  powers.  As  long  as  the  district  officers  complied  with  the 
state  laws,  which  regulated  the  length  of  the  school  term,  required 
certain  reports  and  made  obligatory  the  employment  of  teachers 
considered  competent  by  the  county  superintendent,  the  state  super- 

1  Supra,  Chapter  V,  p.  87. 
2 Supra,  ChapterV,  p.  111. 

3  Although  the  superintendent  is  appointed  by  the  governor  for  only  four  years, 
he  is  usually  reappointed  for  several  terms. 

4  Separation  has  had  disadvantages  as  well  as  advantages.     As  Mr.  Yetter  has 
pointed  out,  the  fact  that  the  superintendent  was  not  a  member  of  the  political  ad- 
ministration weakened  the  force  of  his  recommendations  to  the  General  Assembly. 
The  Educational  System  of  Pennsylvania,  p.  57. 

153 


154  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

intendent  could  not  interfere.  His  principal  power  arose  from  his 
personal  influence  in  stimulating  teachers  and  county  superintendents 
to  do  better  work, x  and  in  urging  modification  of  the  school  laws  by  the 
legislature. 

Thus  the  school  system  in  existence  in  1874  was  the  product  of  many 
laws  based  upon  the  recommendations  of  administrative  officials.  That 
this  system  was  greatly  superior  to  that  established  during  the  'thirties 
cannot  be  denied.  But,  in  spite  of  the  progress  that  had  been  made, 
many  minor  difficulties  and  several  important  problems  remained  un- 
settled. In  1874  the  superintendent  called  the  attention  of  the  legislature 
to  two  classes  of  defects  that,  in  his  opinion,  should  receive  the  attention 
of  that  body:  (1)  Those  that  concerned  the  internal  workings  of  the  in- 
dividual school,  or  what  might  be  called  pedagogical  problems,  and  (2), 
those  that  had  to  do  with  larger  or  more  general  problems.  Among 
the  latter  were  defects  relating  to  taxation,  the  selection  of  teachers, 
compulsory  education,  and  central  control  of  local  school  boards.5 

Among  the  defects  of  the  second  sort,  which  alone  fall  within  the 
scope  of  this  study,  none  was  more  important  than  the  failure  of  the  sys- 
tem to  give  an  elementary  education  to  all  children.  In  the  opinion  of 
the  superintendent  a  large  proportion  of  the  children  did  not  attend 
the  schools.6  Stupidity,  indifference  and  prejudice  caused  many  parents 
to  refrain  from  educating  their  children.  Poverty  was  also  a  cause. 
But  the  chief  officer  of  the  school  system  did  not  recommended  direct 
compulsory  attendance.7 

Moreover,  the  laws  relative  to  the  office  of  county  superintendent 
were  faulty,  in  that  large  counties  with  many  schools  frequently  did  not 
provide  salaries  adequate  to  induce  competent  energetic  men  to  accept 
the  position.  A  number  of  cases  were  reported  in  which  the  smallest 
counties  paid  higher  salaries  than  their  larger  and  wealthier  neighbors. 
The  superintendent  advised  that  the  salaries  of  these  useful  officers  be 
made  to  bear  some  relation  to  the  services  they  rendered.8 

A  more  glaring  defect,  the  lack  of  uniformity  in  the  laws  relating 
to  taxation  for  school  purposes,  and  inequalities  in  their  operation,  the 
superintendent  commented  upon  in  a  few  vague  sentences.  The  causes 
of  these  inequalities  he  did  not  state  definitely,  but  it  may  be  surmised, 

6  Supt.  of  Common  Schools,  Report  (1874),  pp.  xiii-xv. 

6  How  large  was  the  number  of  these  children  could  not  be  accurately  stated  be- 
cause no  school  census  was  required  by  law. 

7  Supt.  of  Common  Schools,  Report  (1874),  xiii. 
•  Idem,  p.  xiv. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  155 

that  he  referred  to  the  escape  of  a  large  part  of  the  corporate  wealth  of 
the  state  from  all  local  taxation.  One  difficulty  dealt  with  specifically 
was  the  uncertainty  existing  as  to  the  maximum  tax  that  districts  might 
levy  for  the  support  of  the  schools.  The  law  of  1854  permitted  them  to 
levy  as  large  a  tax  as  the  combined  state  and  county  rates,  or  thirteen 
mills  on  the  dollar  of  assessed  valuation.  But  the  law  of  1866  had  re- 
pealed the  state  tax  on  real  estate  and  it  was  a  question  whether  it  also 
reduced  the  maximum  tax  that  the  district  might  impose.9 

Two  other  difficulties,  of  vast  importance,  were  not  mentioned  by 
the  superintendent  in  his  report.  One  was  the  ever-present  question 
of  how  to  raise  funds  to  meet  the  constantly  expanding  needs  of  the 
schools.  The  other  was  the  inequitable  method,  then  in  use,  for  dis- 
tributing the  state  appropriation. 

The  principal  events  in  the  history  of  the  common  school  system 
since  1874  relate  chiefly  to  the  difficulties  enumerated.  New  problems 
arose  as  time  went  on,  and  some  questions,  of  minor  importance  in  1874, 
later  became  large  issues.  But  the  most  important  changes  in  the  law 
pertaining  to  the  state  subvention  had  to  do  with  the  defects  inherited 
from  the  earlier  period. 

THE  FINANCING  or  THE  SCHOOL  SYSTEM 

Viewed  from  the  state  superintendent's  office,  or  from  the  position  of 
an  advocate  of  efficient  schools,  it  is  largely  a  matter  of  indifference  what 
shall  be  the  source  of  the  funds  for  financing  elementary  schools.  If 
sufficient  revenues  are  forthcoming  to  pay  the  expenses  of  employing 
good  teachers  and  of  providing  adequate  equipment  for  the  schools,  no 
further  questions  need  be  asked.  In  Pennsylvania,  however,  these 
funds  have  come  from  two  sources:  local  taxation  and  the  state  appro- 
priation. It  is  conceivable  that  a  state  superintendent  might  appeal 
both  to  the  legislature  and  to  the  local  taxing  authorities  for  more  ample 
financial  support.  But  the  latter  were  numerous  and  difficult  to  in- 
fluence. Furthermore,  since  the  superintendent  was  a  state  officer, 
and  since  he  had  the  dispensing  of  the  state  appropriation,  it  was  but 
natural  that  his  appeal  should  be  most  frequently  made  to  the  General 
Assembly.  It  must  not  be  assumed,  however,  because  of  the  frequent 
reference  made  in  his  reports  to  the  inadequacy  of  the  state  appropriation, 
that  the  blame  for  lack  of  funds  was  always  to  be  laid  at  the  door  of 
the  legislature.  The  problem  of  getting  the  necessary  revenue  must  be 
considered  from  two  points  of  view.  In  the  first  place,  when  funds  are 

•  Supt.  of  Common  Schools,  Report,  (1874),  p.  xiii. 


156 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 


said  to  be  inadequate  an  explanation  of  the  failure  of  the  localities  to 
increase  taxation  must  be  sought.  And,  in  the  second  place,  the  reason 
for  the  inaction  of  the  state  legislature  must  also  be  explained. 

The  progress  of  the  school  system  and  the  varying  proportions  in 
which  the  state  and  the  localities  contributed  to  the  support  of  the 
schools  from  1874  to  1888  is  shown  in  the  following  table: 

THE   AVERAGE   NUMBER  OF   CHILDREN   ATTENDING  THE    PUBLIC 
SCHOOLS,  THE  NUMBER  OF  TEACHERS  EMPLOYED,  AND 
THE  FINANCES  OF  THE  SCHOOL  SYSTEM,  PHILADEL- 
PHIA EXCLUDED,  1874-188810 


Propor- 

Excess of 

tion  of 

Average 

Num- 

total expen- 

total ex- 

number 

ber  of 

State 

Tax 

Total 

ditures  over 

pendi- 

Year11 

of  pupils 

teach- 

appropria- 

levied 

expendi- 

state appro- 

tures 

attending 

ers  em- 

tion 

locally 

tures13 

priation 

borne 

school 

ployed 

paid12 

by  state 

appro- 

priation 

1874 

468,309 

17,664 

$521,345 

$5,787,884 

$6,848,788 

$6,327,443 

7.6% 

1875 

472,283 

18,101 

533,625 

5,983,005 

7,438,756 

6,905,131 

7.2 

1876 

495,743 

18,314 

728,207 

6,003,443 

7,079,208 

6,351,001 

10.3 

1877 

491,038 

18,710 

823,785 

6,627,944 

6,735,114 

5,911,329 

12.2 

1878 

515,198 

18,912 

723,083 

5,289,646 

6,346,759 

5,623,676 

11.4 

1879 

595,918 

19,153 

497,031 

4,923,875 

6,103,359 

5,516,328 

8.1 

1880 

509,246 

19,305 

747,297 

4,818,594 

6,001,175 

5,253,878 

12.5 

1881 

504,912 

19,277 

865,820 

5,031,780 

6,443,922 

5,578,102 

13.4 

1882 

519,423 

19,715 

684,128 

5,452,902 

6,657,348 

5,973,220 

10.3 

1883 

532,874 

19,875 

696,478 

5,676,546 

8,378,180 

7,681,702 

8.3 

1884 

549,304 

20,290 

700,341 

6,313,833 

7,653,425 

6,953,084 

9.2 

1885 

559,606 

20,639 

802,103 

6,519,928 

8,100,449 

7,298,346 

9.9 

1886 

570,293 

21,481 

803,344 

6,672,185 

8,237,606 

7,434,262 

9.8 

1887 

570,293 

21,481 

802,411 

6,946,949 

8,306,479 

7,504,068 

9.7 

1888 

573,041 

21,168 

803,191 

7,134,702 

9,544,828 

8,741,637 

8.4 

10  Supt.  of  Public  Instruction,  Report  (1914),  pp.  616-617.    The  total  of  all  receipts 
as  set  forth  in  the  report  from  which  these  data  are  taken  is  not  given,  because  it  ap- 
pears to  contain  amounts  received  from  loans  and  balances  carried  over  from  previous 
years. 

11  Fiscal  year  ending  first  Monday  in  June. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  157 

The  increase  in  the  needs  of  the  school  system  is  best  measured  by 
the  increase  in  the  average  number  of  children  attending  the  schools. 
In  1874,  as  shown  by  the  table,  the  number  was  468,309;  in  1888  it 
was  573,041,  or  an  increase  of  22.4  per  cent.  The  number  of  teachers 
increased  from  17,664  to  21,168  or  19.8  per  cent,  in  the  same  period. 
If  allowance  is  made  for  the  expansion  of  curricula  during  this  time 
and  for  the  grading  of  many  schools,14  it  would  seem  that  the  increase 
hi  the  teaching  staff  had  certainly  not  been  as  rapid  as  the  increase  in 
the  need  for  teachers  as  measured  by  the  growth  of  school  attendance. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  must  be  remembered  that  in  1874  the  attendance 
in  many  schools  was  below  the  maximum  that  the  teaching  staff  could 
care  for.  Although  it  is  not  possible  to  obtain  an  exact  numerical 
equivalent  of  the  need  for  teachers,  the  data  presented  show  clearly  that 
the  teaching  staff  did  not  increase  as  rapidly  as  the  total  expenditure 
for  school  purposes,  or  the  number  of  pupils. 

The  total  expenditures  for  all  school  purposes,  including  the  ex- 
penses of  school  boards  and  the  cost  of  collecting  taxes,  as  well  as  the 
payments  for  teachers'  salaries,  and  for  building  purposes,  show  marked 
increases  during  the  period  under  consideration.  The  total  for  1888 
was  39.4  per  cent  greater  than  that  for  1874.  In  view  of  the  increases 
in  the  purchasing  power  of  money  during  the  period  1874  to  1888,  it 
seems  clear  that  expenditures  for  school  purposes  increased  somewhat 
more  rapidly  than  the  average  number  of  children  attending  the  schools. 
This  is  best  shown  by  the  increase  of  the  annual  expenditure  per  school 
child  from  $14.62,  in  1874,  to  $16.66  in  1888.  But  the  progress  was 
not  continuous.  In  1875  expenditures  increased  to  $15.73  per  pupil, 
remained  nearly  the  same  for  1876  and  then  declined  to  $11.76  in  1880. 
In  1882  the  amount  paid  out  for  each  pupil,  as  indicated  by  the  table, 
had  increased  and  was  $12.82.  The  minor  fluctuations  in  the  total  of 
expenditures  may  be  accounted  for  by  irregularities  in  reports  or  by 
outlays  for  permanent  improvements  in  a  large  number  of  districts  in 
certain  years  and  the  absence  of  such  operations  in  other  years.  The 


12  The  variations  from  year  to  year  in  the  amount  of  the  state  appropriation — 
e.g.,  1876  to  1879 — are  partly  due  to  payment  of  a  portion  of  the  subvention  due   in 
one  year  hi  the  succeeding  year. 

13  The  excess  of  total  expenditures  over  the  sum  of  the  state  appropriations  and 
taxes  locally  is  due  to  loans  and  miscellaneous  revenue  and  in  some  instances  to  accu- 
mulated balances. 

14  It  should  be  remembered  that  the  data  for  Philadelphia  are  not  included  in 
this  table. 


158  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

downward  trend  from  1875  to  1880  can  be  explained  only  on  the  ground 
that  the  districts  were  economizing.  But  this  does  not  necessarily 
mean  that  the  schools  were  correspondingly  less  well  officered  and 
equipped,  since  throughout  this  period  the  purchasing  power  of  money 
was  increasing. 

Turning  now  to  the  sources  of  revenue  to  meet  increasing  payments, 
we  find  that  the  state  appropriation  grew  steadily  until  1877,  thereafter 
declined  slightly  until  1885,  with  the  exception  of  1881,  and  then  again 
increased  to  nearly  the  level  of  the  former  year.  The  amounts  paid 
in  any  given  year  do  not,  however,  indicate  accurately  the  state  appro- 
priations for  that  year,  since  lack  of  funds  in  the  treasury  or  slowness 
of  the  districts  in  making  proper  reports,  sometimes  delayed  the  payment 
of  the  subvention  due  in  any  given  year  until  the  succeeding  year. 

The  state  appropriation  constituted  a  slightly  larger  proportion  of 
the  total  expenditures  in  1888  than  in  1874.  It  is  evident,  however,  that 
it  was  not  only  larger  absolutely  in  1881  but  also  relatively  more  impor- 
tant as  compared  with  the  total  expenditures,  or  with  the  local  tax,  than 
in  any  other  year. 

Moreover,  the  seven  years  1876  to  1882  inclusive  show  a  larger  propor- 
tional contribution  on  the  part  of  the  state  than  any  other  similar  period. 
The  subvention,  under  the  stimulus  of  the  constitution  of  1873,  reached 
its  greatest  importance  in  1881  and  then  declined,  not  because  of  an  abso- 
lute reduction  in  amount  but  because  of  the  steady  growth  of  revenue 
from  local  taxation  after  1880. 

Beginning  with  1889  the  total  appropriation  for  common  schools  shows 
substantial  increases  in  every  year  but  one  until  191 1.  In  1889, 1894,  and 
1909  the  amounts  added  were  very  large,  and  in  no  case  before  1911  was 
the  gain  thus  added  lost  in  subsequent  years.15  The  growth  of  expendi- 
tures for  schools  was  not  peculiar,  since  the  same  tendency  is  to  be  ob- 
served in  other  branches  of  public  enterprise  at  about  the  same  time. 
The  year  1890  seems  roughly  to  mark  the  beginning  of  a  movement  for  a 
wider  extension  of  state  functions.  The  following  table  shows  the  pro- 
gress of  the  school  system  for  the  years  1889  to  1916.16 

15  There  is  obviously  a  falling  off  in  the  years  1911-1916  from  the  amount  reached 
in  1910.     But  the  decrease  is  due  to  the  diversion  of  a  part  of  the  subvention  to  edu- 
cational purposes  other  than  the  common  schools. 

16  Compare  the  data  of  the  tables  on  pages  156  and  159  with  the  payments  from 
the  state  treasury  for  common  schools  in  Table  III  Appendix,  which  includes  the 
amounts  paid  to  Philadelphia.     Note   that  the  fiscal  year  of  the  state  and  of  the 
school  system  are  different. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 


159 


THE  AVERAGE  NUMBER  OF  PUPILS  ATTENDING  THE  SCHOOLS,   THE 

NUMBER  OF  TEACHERS  EMPLOYED,  AND  THE  FINANCES 

OF  THE  COMMON  SCHOOL  SYSTEM,  PHILADELPHIA 

EXCLUDED,  1889-19 1617 


Propor- 

Excess of 

tion  of 

Average 

Num- 

total expen- 

total ex- 

number 

ber  of 

State 

Tax 

Total 

ditures  over 

pendi- 

Year1 

of  pupils 

teach- 

appropria- 

levied 

expendi- 

state appro- 

tures 

attending 

ers  em- 

tion 

locally 

tures 

priation 

borne 

school 

ployed 

by  state 

appro- 

priation 

1889 

583,292 

21,393 

$1,207,010 

$  7,869,506 

$  9,544,928 

$  8,337,918 

12.6% 

1890 

574,817 

21,886 

1,206,205 

7,923,622 

10,226,634 

9,020,429 

11.8 

1891 

592,249 

22,231 

1,564,604 

8,961,138 

10,416,631 

8,852,027 

15.0 

1892 

590,316 

22,556 

1,560,267 

8,187,894 

10,785,582 

9,225,315 

14.5 

1893 

610,422 

23,085 

2,901,117 

7,776,102 

12,087,089 

9,185,972 

24.0 

1894 

610,201 

23,253 

4,039,766 

8,677,583 

13,466,153 

9,426,387 

30.0 

1895 

666,102 

22,993 

4,432,647 

2,598,543 

14,301,574 

9,868,927 

31.0 

1896 

683,918 

23,603 

4,439,753 

9,926,163 

14,774,773 

10,335,020 

30.1 

1897 

711,111 

24,174 

4,389,030 

9,351,011 

15,240,126 

10,851,096 

28.8 

1898 

736,334 

24,716 

4,391,574 

9,275,230 

15,050,057 

10,658,483 

29.2 

1899 

729,892 

25,358 

4,637,585 

10,078,541 

15,497,251 

10,859,666 

29.9 

1900 

728,493 

26,878 

4,622,823 

10,500,963 

16,548,224 

11,925,401 

27.9 

1901 

720,116 

26,453 

5,291,154 

10,887,613 

17,087,953 

11,796,799 

31.0 

1902 

738,573 

26,990 

4,355,601 

12,687,416 

17,672,118 

13,316,517 

24.6 

1903 

751,000 

27,683 

4,658,210 

17,781,590 

18,984,474 

14,326,264 

24.6 

1904 

764,119 

28,372 

4,597,617 

13,085,708 

20,096,719 

15,499,102 

22.9 

1905 

788,542 

28,428 

4,576,413 

14,866,554 

22,312,059 

17,735,646 

20.5 

1906 

784,144 

29,193 

4,483,154 

15,981,971 

22,763,789 

18,280,635 

19.7 

1907 

788,759 

29,249 

4,525,546 

16,756,672 

23,904,291 

19,378,745 

18.9 

1908 

803,794 

29,703 

4,532,540 

19,114,955 

26,121,640 

21,589,100 

17.4 

1909 

841,887 

30,248 

6,108,263 

20,758,275 

29,707,148 

22,598,885 

20.6 

1910 

846,749 

30,887 

6,254,507 

21,019,917 

30,146,591 

23,892,084 

20.7 

1911 

872,475 

31,518 

6,043,815 

22,172,202 

32,897,212 

26,853,397 

18.4 

1912 

901,943 

32,378 

6,097,747 

22,537,752 

35,327,217 

29,229,470 

17.3 

1913 

910,048 

33,228 

6,040,780 

25,461,020 

38,019,390 

31,978,610 

15.9 

1914 

955,746 

34,686 

6,034,355 

28,360,779 

41,958,386 

35,924,031 

14.4 

1915 

990,551 

35,928 

6,153,125 

27,329,842 

46,844,449 

40,691,324 

13.1 

1916 

1,028,682 

37,110 

6,227,963 

30,275,411 

49,463,634 

43,235,671 

12.6 

17  From  the  Report  (1916)  of  the  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction,  pp.  650-651. 

18  The  fiscal  year  of  the  school  system  ended  the  first  Monday  in  June  until  changed 
by  the  act  of  1911.     Thereafter  the  year  of  the  report  began  on  the  first  Monday  in 
July.     The  data  for  1912  are  therefore  for  thirteen  months,  but  this  does  not  interfere 


160  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

The  most  striking  fact  brought  out  by  this  table  is  the  tremendous 
increase  in  the  total  expenditure  for  common  schools.  In  1916  this 
figure  was  over  five  times  as  large  as  in  1889.  Local  taxes  also  increased 
but  at  a  slightly  slower  rate.  The  subvention,  on  the  other  hand,  grew 
somewhat  more  rapidly  than  the  total  of  all  expenditures.  The  average 
number  of  children  attending  the  schools  increased  76.3  per  cent  during 
this  period  and  the  number  of  teachers  employed  increased  73.4  per  cent. 
This  increase  in  the  number  of  teachers  was  accompanied  by  an  aug- 
mentation of  the  salary  budget  from  $5,044,385  in  1889  to  $21,173,791 
in  1916.19  In  1889  the  expenditures  per  pupil  were  $16.36,  or  about  the 
same  as  in  1888,  but  beginning  1890  the  amount  paid  out  increased  irregu- 
larly until  in  1916  it  amounted  to  $48.08.  During  this  period  the  pro- 
gress of  expenditures  is  in  marked  contrast  with  that  of  the  period  1874 
to  1888.  Not  only  have  the  per  capita  payments  been  much  greater, 
but  the  additions  to  the  total  have  been  much  more  regular.  The  sub- 
vention on  the  other  hand  has  fluctuated  slightly,  and  since  1909  has 
been  practically  stationary  in  amount. 

In  1889  the  districts  paid  out  $8.65  per  child  for  teacher's  wages.20 
In  1916  the  expenditure  for  the  same  purpose  amounted  to  $20.58  per 
child.  This  increase  was  due  chiefly  to  higher  salaries,  as  is  shown  by 
the  fact  that  the  monthly  wages  of  male  teachers  increased  from  $35.57, 
in  1889,  to  $67.17,  in  1916,  and  those  of  female  teachers  from  $29.76  to 
$49.89.21 

As  was  the  case  during  the  years  1874  to  1888,  the  principal  source 
of  the  revenue  required  to  meet  the  payments  for  schools  was  the  local 
tax  on  real  and  personal  property.  In  1889  the  local  levies  amounted  to 
$7,869,506  and  in  1916  to  $30,275,411.  Rapid  as  was  the  expansion  of 
local  taxation  it  did  not  keep  pace  with  the  growth  of  the  state  appro- 
priation, which  jumped  from  $1,207,010,  in  1889,  to  $4,039,766,  in  1894, 
and  to  $6,254,507  in  1910.  In  1916  it  amounted  to  $6,227,963,  or  about 
five  times  as  much  as  hi  1889,  while  the  total  of  local  taxation  was  only 
approximately  four  times  as  large  as  in  the  earlier  year.  The  growth 
of  local  taxation  was,  however,  far  more  steady  than  that  of  the  subven- 

with  the  comparability  of  other  years.     See  School  Laws  and  Decisions  (1913),  sec. 
2807. 

19  Supt.  of  Public  Instruction,  Report  (1916),  p.  650. 

20  This  figure  is  found  by  dividing  the  expenditure  for  teachers'  wages  by  the 
average  number  of  children  attending  school.    The  objections  to  this  method  are 
obvious,  but  no  better  basis  for  the  calculation  is  to  be  had. 

21  Supt.  of  Public  Instruction,  Report  (1916),  p.  650. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  161 

tion,  and  the  result  was  that  the  proportion  of  total  expenditures  paid 
by  the  state  fluctuated  greatly.  It  was  12.6  per  cent  of  the  total  in 
1889  and  six  years  later  31.0  per  cent.  Thereafter  it  remained  fairly 
constant  for  seven  years,  until  1902,  when  it  began  to  decline,  slowly, 
at  first,  and  then  more  rapidly  as  new  objects  for  state  expenditure  in- 
creased their  demands.  In  1916  the  subvention  for  common  schools 
contributed  almost  exactly  the  same  proportion  of  the  total  expenditures 
as  in  1889. 

The  figures  of  the  Auditor  General,  which  include  payments  to 
Philadelphia,  show  more  completely  the  increase  of  the  subvention.  In 
1889,  the  total  of  all  payments  to  common  schools,  not  including  the 
salaries  of  county  superintendents,  amounted  to  $1,642,764.  In  1916 
they  amounted  to  $6,653,348,  but  in  1914  and  1915  the  ordinary  subven- 
tion declined.22  The  growth  of  the  subvention  from  1889  to  1916  has 
been  much  more  rapid  than  the  increase  of  the  number  of  pupils  or  the 
number  of  teachers.  For  several  years  previous  to  1916,  however,  the 
legislature  made  appropriation  for  various  educational  purposes  such  as 
vocational  or  industrial  schools,  the  amount  of  which  was  deducted  from 
the  total  of  the  common  school  grant.  The  result  has  been  that  the 
regular  work  of  the  common  schools  has  been  deprived  of  a  part  of  the 
support  that  would  otherwise  have  come  to  it.  The  amount  of  the  state 
appropriation  for  common  schools  was  $7.39,  per  child  in  1910  and  in 
1916  only  $6.05.  The  growth  of  both  the  number  of  children  and  the 
number  of  teachers  has  been  more  rapid  than  that  of  appropriation.23 

CAUSES  FOR  THE  INCREASE  or  THE  STATE  SUBVENTIONS  FROM 

1889  TO  1916 

The  most  fundamental  reason  for  the  greatly  augmented  payments 
for  the  support  of  public  schools  has  been  the  growth  of  interest  in  educa- 
tion on  the  part  of  the  tax-paying  public;  but  this  is  a  nation-wide  pheno- 
menon, and  probably  not  more  marked  in  its  manifestation  in  Pennsyl- 
vania than  in  many  other  states.  In  nearly  every  community  the  people 
have  demanded  better  qualified  teachers  and  better  school  buildings.24 
Libraries  and  laboratories  have  been  improved  and  better  mechanical 
equipment  of  all  kinds  has  been  introduced.  In  addition,  the  scope  of 
the  public  schools  has  been  expanded  tremendously.  In  Pennsylvania, 
where  it  was  once  a  question  whether  a  majority  of  the  people  would 

22  See  Table  III,  Appendix. 

23  Supt.  of  Public  Instruction,  Report  (1915),  p.  12. 

24  Cf.  Cubberley,  School  Funds  and  Their  Apportionment,  pp.  15-16. 


162  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

permit  the  establishment  of  elementary  schools  supported  by  taxation, 
high  schools,  vocational  schools,  and  night  classes  for  working  people 
are  now  regarded  as  necessary  parts  of  the  public  school  system.  As 
has  been  the  case  with  nearly  all  other  kinds  of  governmental  activity, 
the  existing  service  has  been  elaborated  by  introducing  new  departments 
and  at  the  same  time  the  work  previously  done  has  been  performed  more 
efficiently. 

But  the  reasons  just  given  for  the  growing  cost  of  public  education 
do  not  account  for  the  relatively  more  rapid  increase  of  the  state's  share 
in  its  cost  in  Pennsylvania.  Writers  on  educational  subjects,  and  es- 
pecially those  who  deal  with  pedagogy  and  school  management,  have 
been  inclined  to  regard  state-wide  taxation  for  the  support  of  the  school 
system  as  the  logical  result  of  public  recognition  of  state-wide  interest  in 
the  education  of  all  the  children  within  the  state.  Thus  Professor  Cub- 
berley  asserts  that  "the  people  of  a  whole  state  agree  to  pool  their  efforts, 
in  part,  to  help  maintain  a  good  system  of  schools  throughout  the  state, 
the  wealthier  communities  helping  the  poorer  ones  to  share  the  burden  of 
maintaining  that  which  has  come  to  be  generally  recognized  as  existing 
for  the  common  good  of  all.  "25  The  desire  to  equalize  educational  advan- 
tages, to  give  each  child  in  the  state  the  opportunity  for  a  good  education, 
and  at  the  same  time  to  equalize  the  burden  of  supporting  the  schools 
is  undoubtedly  one  of  the  chief  reasons  for  the  existence  of  a  subvention 
for  education.  But  in  Pennsylvania  the  relatively  more  rapid  increase 
of  the  subvention,  as  compared  with  local  taxation,  has  been  caused 
chiefly  by  the  demand  of  the  local  taxpayers  that  the  property  subject 
only  to  state  taxation  be  made  to  bear  a  larger  share  in  the  cost  of  local 
governments.  In  Chapter  VI  it  was  pointed  out  that  the  augmentation 
of  state  subventions  was  one  of  the  methods  by  which  the  General 
Assembly  satisfied  the  demand  of  the  rural  communities  for  relief  from 
taxation.  Since  the  funds  from  wrhich  the  subvention  was  derived  were 
got  by  taxing  corporations,  a  shifting  of  the  burden  of  taxes  upon  dif- 
ferent classes  of  taxpayers  was  thus  accomplished. 

The  increase  in  the  common  school  subvention  was  demanded  by  the 
agricultural  interest  as  a  means  of  reducing  the  burden  of  local  taxation. 
During  the  legislative  session  of  1891,  this  demand  was  definitely  put 
forward  by  the  Grangers.26  Ten  years  later  a  member  of  the  General 
Assembly  stated  in  debate  that  the  interest  of  the  rural  communities 

85  P.  70.     See  also  his  Summary  of  Conclusions,  no.  4,  Ch.  XVI,  p.  250,  and  com- 
pare Strayer  and  Thorndike,  Educational  Administration,  pp.  368-369. 
28  Pittsburgh  Dispatch,  18  May,  1891,  p.  1. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  163 

in  the  school  appropriation  was  especially  great  because  that  was  about 
the  only  means  by  which  they  could  acquire  a  share  in  the  revenues 
collected  by  the  state.27 

Two  years  later,  in  1903,  a  senator  stated  that  "The  corporations,  the 
railroads,  pay  a  large  part  of  the  tax  which  is  apportioned  to  school  pur- 
poses and  they  do  so,  as  I  understand  it,  because  they  do  not  pay  local 
taxation,  and  the  local  authorities  pay  the  tax  for  maintaining  the  town- 
ship, the  schools,  the  roads,  the  borough  and  city  expenses,  and  so  in 
that  way  the  state  pays  back  to  the  school  districts,  a  liberal  amount  to- 
ward the  maintaining  of  the  schools."28  And,  in  1910,  the  state  super- 
intendent pointed  out  that  the  amount  of  the  state  appropriation  for 
schools  was  conditioned  by  the  property  subject  to  state  and  to  local 
taxation.29 

Additional  evidence  that  the  subvention  to  common  schools  has  been 
regarded  as  a  means  of  relieving  the  local  taxpayer  is  to  be  found  in  the 
statement  of  the  state  superintendent  in  1893.  In  his  report  for  that 
year  the  superintendent  laments  that  in  too  many  districts  the  directors 
reduced  the  tax  rate  to  less  than  one  mill  when  the  larger  state  appro- 
priation became  available  in  1892  and  1893.30  Again,  in  1901,  when  the 
subvention  had  been  further  augmented,  the  same  effect  was  apparent.31 

A  further  reason  for  the  growing  subvention  to  common  schools 
has  been  the  prosperity  of  the  state  treasury.  The  state  revenues  are 
chiefly  derived  from  taxes  levied  on  transportation,  financial,  and  in- 
surance corporations,  from  the  tax  on  inheritances,  and  from  numerous 
business  license  taxes.  With  the  growth  of  population  and  industry 
within  the  state  these  taxes  became  progressively  more  productive,32 
and  the  common  schools  participated,  as  did  charitable  institutions, 
in  the  increasing  liberality  of  state  expenditure.33 

THE  DISTRIBUTION  OF  THE  SUBVENTION  TO  COMMON  SCHOOLS 

We  have  seen  that  the  state  appropriation  for  the  assistance  of  the 
common  schools  was  greatly  increased  after  1889.  Not  only  were  the 

27  Mr.  Coray  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  23  May,  1901,  Legislative  Record, 
p.  2666,  col.  2. 

"Mr.  Sisson,  in  the  Senate,  1  April,  1903,  Legislative  Record,  p.  2607,  col.  1. 
See  also,  statement  of  Mr.  J.  W.  Morrow,  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  23  March, 
1897,  idem,  p.  915. 

29  Report  (1910),  p.  xiv. 

30  Report  (1893),  p.  viii. 

31  Report  (1901),  p.  x. 

32  See  tables  on  pp.  143,145,  and  146. 

33  See  infra,  Ch.  IX. 


164  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

additions  to  the  subvention  large  in  absolute  figures,  but  the  rate  of  in- 
crease was  greater  in  the  case  of  the  subvention  than  in  the  case  of  local 
taxation,  or  in  the  number  of  children  attending  the  schools.  It  might 
appear,  therefore,  to  the  casual  observer,  that  ample  provision  had 
been  made,  so  far  as  the  state  was  concerned,  for  the  education  of  all 
the  children.  Such  a  conclusion  would  not,  however,  follow  from  the 
facts  set  forth  in  the  preceding  section.  It  would  be  faulty  because  it 
would  assume  that  the  appropriation  was  made  directly  for  the  benefit 
of  the  children.  Actually  the  appropriation  is  made  to  the  various 
districts.  These  districts  then  expend  the  funds  appropriated  by  the 
state  for  the  benefit  of  the  children. 

In  order  that  a  large  subvention  shall  mean  better  educational 
opportunities  for  all  the  children  of  the  state  it  must  be  so  distributed 
that  the  weaker,  or  less  wealthy  districts  receive  enough  aid  to  enable 
them  to  maintain  schools  that  measure  up  to  the  minimum  standard 
of  elementary  educational  efficiency.  An  increase  of  the  subvention  will 
not,  therefore,  bring  about  the  desired  results  if  the  method  of  distribution 
is  such  as  to  favor  the  districts  that  are  already  able  to  provide  good 
schools,  and  to  slight  those  that  cannot  provide  them.  To  accomplish 
the  best  results,  to  make  it  possible  for  all  the  children  to  have  access 
to  good  schools,  liberal  state  aid  must  be  accompanied  by  a  proper  method 
of  distribution.34 

When  the  large  increases  in  the  subvention  to  common  schools  were 
voted,  in  the  years  1887  to  1893,  the  method  of  distributing  the  appro- 
priation was  left  unchanged  and  the  districts  continued  to  receive  their 
quotas  in  accordance  with  the  number  of  taxables  resident  within  each. 
Unfortunately,  the  effect  of  these  increases  was,  therefore,  further  to 
aggravate  the  inequality  of  educational  opportunities.  For  this  result 
two  causes  are  assignable.  In  the  first  place,  the  distribution  of  the 
subvention  was  such  as  to  favor  the  wealthier  districts.  In  the  second 
place,  the  legislature  took  no  action  to  compel  the  districts  to  use  the 
funds  derived  by  them  from  the  state  subvention  to  increase  the  effi- 
ciency of  their  schools. 

Why  the  legislature  failed  to  change  the  basis  for  distributing  the 
state  appropriation  is  not  entirely  clear.  The  method  in  use  made 
the  basis  for  distribution  practically  that  of  the  number  of  inhabitants 

34  The  most  complete  treatment  of  whole  question  of  the  distribution  of  state 
subventions  to  common  schools  is  Professor  Cubberley's  School  Funds  and  Their 
Apportionment.  In  this  work  a  number  of  methods  of  distribution  are  explained  and 
criticised. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  165 

on  the  assessment  rolls.  As  early  as  1866  it  was  clearly  demonstrated 
to  the  General  Assembly  that  this  method  worked  to  the  disadvantage 
of  the  sparsely  populated  districts.*5 

In  1884  the  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction,  Higbee,  made  a 
strong  argument  in  favor  of  distribution  according  to  the  average  number 
of  children  in  attendance.  He  asserted  that  the  purpose  of  the  sub- 
vention was  the  benefit  of  the  children  attending  the  schools.  It  fol- 
lowed, therefore,  that  it  should  be  so  distributed  that  the  districts  would 
receive  aid  in  accordance  with  the  number  of  children  they  contained.36 
Again,  in  1891,  Superintendent  Waller  reported  that  "The  present 
basis  [of  distribution]  yields  so  much  in  the  wealthy  and  populous  dis- 
tricts that  the  tax  rate  is  often  two  mills,  while  in  sparsely  settled  dis- 
tricts, where  the  schools  must  be  kept  open  for  few  children  widely 
scattered,  the  state  aid  is  so  small  that  even  with  the  maximum  tax 
rate  of  thirteen  mills,  it  is  difficult  to  maintain  the  schools  six  months."37 

In  the  latter  report  the  superintendent  seems  to  have  had  two  points 
in  mind.  First,  the  method  of  distribution  employed  favored  the  popu- 
lous districts  and  discriminated  against  the  sparsely  settled  ones.  Sec- 
ond, where  the  sparsely  settled  districts  were  also  lacking  in  taxable 
wealth,  the  maximum  tax  allowable  by  law  did  not  yield  enough  revenue 
to  maintain  good  schools.  In  wealthy  districts,  this  might  not,  and 
probably  would  not  have  been  true. 

The  effect  of  the  method  of  distribution  according  to  taxables  was 
more  accurately  stated  by  the  superintendent  in  1896.  In  his  report 
for  that  year,  he  showed  that  the  method  discriminated  against  those 
communities  that  had  no  industries  to  hold  their  adult  population  and 
favored  those  to  which  the  young  people  drifted  as  soon  as  their  school 
days  were  over.38  In  this  statement  the  effects  of  the  method  of  distribu- 
tion are  not  confused  with  the  results  of  differences  in  the  taxpaying 
capacity  of  the  various  districts. 

In  spite  of  the  perpetual  war  waged  upon  it  by  the  state  superinten- 
dent, the  method  of  distribution  according  to  taxables  persisted  until 
1897.  The  change  was  slow  in  coming  because  of  the  conflict  of  interests 

u  See  a  statement  by  Mr.  Householder,  in  the  Senate,  17  January,  1866,  Legisla- 
tive Record,  pp.  51-52.  In  debate  in  the  same  house,  on  the  same  day,  Mr.  Bingham 
of  Pittsburgh  admitted  that  distribution  according  to  taxables  favored  the  large 
cities.  Idem,  p.  52. 

M  Report  (1884),  p.  xvii. 

37  Report  (1891),  p.  vi. 

3*  Report  (1S96-),  p.  xxi. 


166  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

of  the  various  communities  within  the  state.  The  more  populous  coun- 
ties, such  as  Philadelphia,  resisted  interference  with  the  existing  order, 
which  was  advantageous  to  them.  The  representatives  of  the  sparsely 
settled  districts  complained  that  they  did  not  receive  enough  aid  to  enable 
them  to  keep  their  schools  open  for  the  minimum  term.  To  this  the 
representatives  of  the  cities  replied  that  many  of  the  complaining  com- 
munities received  more  from  the  subvention  to  schools  than  they  paid 
in  state  taxes;  that  these  districts  were  already  more  liberally  treated 
than  those  that  paid  heavy  personal  property,  license,  or  corporation 
taxes  to  the  state;  that  although  Philadelphia  raised  twice  as  much  by 
local  school  taxes  as  was  received  from  the  state,  her  schools  were  over- 
crowded and  large  numbers  of  children  were  forced  to  attend  school 
only  half  of  the  day  because  of  lack  of  school  buildings.  To  the  last 
point  the  rural  communities  rejoined  that  the  difficulty  of  providing 
schools  in  Philadelphia  was  due  to  the  over-development  of  the  high 
schools,  which  absorbed  a  disproportionate  share  of  the  revenues  raised 
for  educational  purposes.39  In  brief,  whenever  a  proposal  to  change 
the  basis  of  distribution  came  up  in  the  General  Assembly  the  members 
voted  as  the  interest  of  their  districts  dictated,40  and  for  many  years  no 
change  was  possible. 

In  1897  the  legislature  changed  the  method  of  distribution,  but  not 
without  much  resistance  on  the  part  of  the  representatives  of  the  urban 
districts.  One  senator  argued  that  since  Philadelphia  maintained 
schools  for  ten  months  each  year  she  should  receive  a  relatively  larger 
share  of  the  subvention  than  those  districts  whose  schools  were  in  ses- 
sion for  a  shorter  term.41  He  also  argued  that  any  change  that  would 
reduce  Philadelphia's  quota,  would  interfere  with  the  carrying  out  of  a 
plan  for  the  betterment  of  the  schools,  which  that  city  had  adopted,  and, 
therefore,  no  such  change  could  justly  be  made.42  To  these  arguments 
a  senator  from  a  rural  county  replied  that  "the  idea  of  a  pupil  in  Phila- 
delphia getting  seven  dollars  and  ninety-six  cents  and  a  pupil  in  Alle- 
gheny getting  five  dollars  and  ten  cents,  and  a  pupil  in  that  much  neg- 
lected and  adjacent  county — Beaver  County — getting  three  dollars 
and  eleven  cents  is  outrageous  .  .  .  "43 

89  See  Supt.  of  Public  Instruction,  Report  (1896),  p.  xxi. 

40  Ibid. 

41  Mr.  Osbourn,  21  April,  1897,  Legislative  Record,  p.  1377. 

42  Idem,  p.  1376. 

"Mr.  Critchfield,  in  the  Senate,  21  April,  1897,  Legislative  Record,  p.  1377. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  167 

Probably  the  strongest  pressure  for  a  readjustment  of  the  method  of 
distributing  the  subvention  came  from  the  organization  of  agriculturists 
known  as  the  "Grangers."44  They  demanded  that  some  scheme  be 
adopted  which  would  enable  the  rural  communities  to  have  better  schools 
without  levying  oppressive  taxes.  Aided  by  the  authoritative  opinion 
of  the  state  superintendent,  the  representatives  of  the  rural  districts 
succeeded  in  1897  in  forcing  through  the  legislature  a  bill  which  Increased 
materially  the  proportion  received  by  the  country  districts.  This  law 
provided  that  after  June  1,  1898,  one- third  of  the  state  appropriation 
should  be  distributed  on  the  basis  of  the  number  of  teachers  regularly 
employed  and  paid,  one- third  on  the  basis  of  the  number  of  children 
between  the  ages  of  six  and  sixteen  and  one-third  on  the  basis  of  the 
number  of  taxables  on  the  assessment  roll  in  each  district.45 

The  effect  of  this  change  is  difficult  to  determine.  Changing  stan- 
dards for  assessing  property  and  lack  of  definite  data  for  comparing 
efficiency  in  the  conduct  of  the  schools  make  conclusions  based  solely 
on  the  statistical  reports  of  the  districts  hazardous.  The  opinion  of  the 
state  superintendent  is  probably  the  best  evidence  at  hand.  Writing 
in  1901,  four  years  after  the  passage  of  the  law,  he  stated  that  the  dis- 
tribution of  one- third  of  the  appropriation  according  to  the  number  of 
taxables  still  favored  the  cities  and  boroughs  as  against  the  rural  com- 
munities; that  the  distribution  of  one-third  according  to  the  number  of 
children  between  the  ages  of  six  and  sixteen  favored  the  urban  centers; 
and  that  the  distribution  of  one-third  according  to  the  number  of  teachers 
employed  favored  the  rural  districts.46 

It  is  evident  that  the  new  scheme  was  the  result  of  a  compromise. 
The  od  method  of  distributing  the  subvention  was  undoubtedly  retained 
for  onle-third  of  the  appropriation  in  order  not  to  strike  too  severe  a  blow 
at  the  vested  interests  of  the  larger  cities.  For  this  motive  no  defense 
can  be  advanced  except  as  a  reason  for  introducing  the  change  gradually. 
Distribution  according  to  school  population  (or  that  part  of  it  between 
the  ages  of  six  and  sixteen  years)  obviously  favored  communities  that 
were  populous  enough  to  make  it  possible  to  place  the  maximum  number 
of  scholars  under  each  teacher.  The  new  method  of  distribution  did 
nothing,  however,  to  equalize  the  tax  burden  between  districts  containing 
the  same  school  population  but  having  within  their  boundaries  different 
amounts  of  wealth. 

44  Yetter,  p.  103. 

«  Act  15  July,  1897,  P.L.  p.  271. 

48  Report  (1901),  p.  iv. 


168  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

That  distribution  according  to  the  number  of  teachers  employed 
should  favor  the  sparsely  settled  communities  is  easily  understood.  A 
district  that  contained  only  three  or  four  schools,  in  each  of  which  only  a 
dozen  pupils  were  enrolled,  received  as  much  aid  (from  this  one-third 
of  the  appropriation)  as  did  other  districts  that  employed  the  same  num- 
ber of  teachers,  but  in  which  three  times  as  many  pupils  were  in  attend- 
ance at  the  schools. 

Although  the  act  of  1897  was  a  victory  for  both  the  rural  communi- 
ties and  the  educators  who  desired  a  more  rational  method  of  distributing 
state  aid,  it  was  not  regarded  as  a  final  achievement  by  either.  In  1908 
the  state  superintendent  again  entered  a  plea  on  behalf  of  the  rural 
districts.  In  a  few  significant  sentences  he  summed  up  the  difficulties 
that  stood  in  the  way  of  the  improvement  of  the  rural  schools.  "The 
maxim:  'Equal  school  advantages  for  children  all  over  the  common- 
wealth' will  always  remain  an  iridescent  dream,  if  the  state  does  not 
vote  a  special  appropriation  to  districts  which,  although  levying  the 
maximum  school  tax  allowed  by  law,  do  not  have  money  enough  to  keep 
their  schools  in  operation  during  the  minimum  term  of  seven  months. 
There  are  nineteen  districts  in  which  the  schools  were  open  six  months; 
two  districts  in  which  the  schools  were  open  only  five  months.  In  all 
districts  where  the  assessment  of  property  is  equal  to  its  full  value  and 
where  the  maximum  rate  of  tax  does  not  suffice  to  run  the  schools  during 
the  minimum  term,  the  state  should  come  to  the  rescue  of  the  children 
and  give  them  school  advantages  equal  to  those  of  other  districts.  Al- 
though the  law  requires  property  to  be  assessed  at  its  real  value,  the 
assessment  varies  from  one-fourth  of  the  market  price  up  to  figures  in 
excess  of  what  the  property  would  bring  at  a  forced  sale.  This  variation 
in  assessed  values  makes  impossible  any  plan  of  distributing  the  school 
appropriation  in  which  the  millage  or  tax  rate  is  the  sole  determining 
factor."47 

It  is  quite  clear  that  the  superintendent  was  not  deceived  by  the  com- 
plaint of  certain  districts  that  they  were  unable  to  support  good  schools. 
A  very  high  rate  of  taxation  did  not  always  mean  that  the  districts 
imposing  it  were  making  great  sacrifices  to  educate  their  children.  It 
often  meant  that  property  was  assessed  at  an  unusually  small  fraction 
of  its  actual  value,  or  that  a  portion  of  the  taxable  wealth  was  not  assessed 
at  all.  But  such  conditions  were  probably  not  the  rule.  Hence  the 
recommendation  for  more  ample  assistance  for  rural  districts. 

47  Report  (1908),  p.  xv. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  169 

Dissatisfaction  with  the  method  of  distribution  instituted  in  1897 
continued  to  manifest  itself,  and,  in  1911,  another  plan  was  adopted.48 
The  law  of  that  year  required  one-half  of  the  state  appropriation  to  be 
distributed  on  the  basis  of  the  number  of  teachers  employed  and  one-half 
on  the  basis  of  the  number  of  children  between  the  ages  of  six  and  sixteen 
residing  in  the  respective  districts.49 

This  arrangement  was  more  advantageous  to  the  sparsely  settled 
districts  than  was  the  method  adopted  in  1897,  but  it  did  not  solve  the 
rural  school  problem.  "The  most  perplexing  educational  problem  of 
today,"  wrote  State  Superintendent  Schaeffer,  in  1914,  "is  the  rural 
school.  One-room  buildings,  erected  years  ago,  poorly  lighted,  insuf- 
ficiently heated,  inadequately  ventilated,  having  unattractive  surround- 
ings and  inadequate  playgrounds,  can  be  found  in  many  sections  of  the 
state.  The  attendance  is  small,  the  equipment  is  meagre,  the  isolation 
is  forbidding  and  the  teacher  accepts  the  place  because  no  position  is 
open  to  her  anywhere  else.  Impassable  roads  make  centralization  im- 
possible. Sometimes  the  maximum  tax  levy  allowed  by  law  is  insuf- 
ficient to  keep  the  schools  in  operation  during  the  minimum  term  of  seven 
months.  Sometimes  the  lack  of  funds  is  due  to  a  low  assessment,  or 
to  an  unwillingness  to  raise  the  tax  rate.  "50 

All  attempts  to  bring  about  a  regeneration  of  these  schools  have  been 
unsuccessful.  Lack  of  local  interest,  lack  of  taxable  wealth,  and  lack 
of  willingness  to  pay  taxes  all  stand  in  the  way  of  improvement.  "What 
the  rural  school  districts  need  now,  above  everything  else,  is  more  money 
for  better  buildings  and  better  teachers,  and  better  highways  for  the 
transportation  of  pupils."51 

48  In  that  year  the  General  Assembly  adopted  the  School  Code.  In  addition  to 
compiling  the  laws  then  in  force,  this  act  introduced  a  number  of  marked  innovations. 

«  Act  18  May,  1911,  P.L.  pp.  309-461  at  p.  420.  The  law  reads  as  follows:  "Sec- 
tion 2304.  One-half  [of  the  state  appropriation  shall  be  distributed]  on  the  basis  of 
the  number  of  paid  teachers  regularly  employed  for  the  full  annual  term  of  the  school 
district,  not  including  substitute  teachers,  or  teachers  employed  to  fill  vacancies  which 
may  occur  during  the  school  year;  such  number  of  teachers  to  be  certified  as  herein 
provided. 

"Section  2305.  One-half  on  the  basis  of  the  number  of  children  between  the  ages 
of  six  and  sixteen  residing  in  the  respective  school  districts  of  the  several  counties  of 
this  commonwealth,  as  reported  to  the  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction  under 
provisions  of  this  act. " 

This  method  of  distribution  is  still  in  force.  See  The  School  Code  (1917),  pp.  122- 
123. 

60  Report  (1914),  p.  21. 

61  Ibid. 


170  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

During  the  twenty  years  ending  in  1916,  there  has  been  a  marked 
tendency  on  the  part  of  state  superintendents  to  place  a  larger  share  of 
the  blame  for  the  failure  of  the  common  schools  upon  the  people  living 
in  the  districts  where  the  less  efficient  schools  are  found.  It  has  come 
to  be  recognized  that  a  liberal  state  appropriation  can  make  little  im- 
provement in  localities  where  the  population  is  indifferent  to  the  need 
for  better  teachers  and  better  equipment.  If  the  statement  just  quoted 
is  fairly  indicative  of  the  opinion  of  educators,  the  most  promising  remedy 
is  centralization  and  not  a  larger  state  appropriation  nor  a  different 
method  of  distribution.  But  centralization  can  scarcely  accomplish 
all  the  reforms  needed  unless,  at  the  same  time,  the  inhabitants  of  the 
districts  that  stand  most  in  need  of  improvement  are  aroused  to  an 
appreciation  of  their  responsibilities  as  parents  and  as  citizens. 

REGULATIONS  IMPOSED  BY  THE  STATE  UPON  DISTRICTS  RECEIVING  THE 
SUBVENTION  TO  COMMON  SCHOOLS 

During  the  years  1887  to  1916,  while  the  annual  state  appropriations 
increased  from  about  $800,000  to  over  $6,000,000,  the  state  gradually 
made  the  conditions  upon  which  the  districts  received  the  subvention 
more  numerous  and  more  exacting.  The  most  important  of  these  con- 
ditions was  the  requirement  that  districts  which  participated  in  state 
aid  should  keep  their  schools  open  for  a  specified  length  of  time.  This 
specified  term  was  always  a  minimum,  and,  with  certain  exceptions,  any 
district  could  maintain  longer  sessions  if  it  so  desired. 

In  1872  the  legislature  increased  the  minimum  term  from  four  to 
five  months.  A  way  of  escape  was,  however,  left  open  for  districts 
objecting  to  the  expense  of  keeping  their  schools  in  operation  for  the 
additional  month.  The  law  provided  that  in  case  any  district  found 
the  maximum  tax  permitted  by  law  insufficient  to  finance  a  term  of 
five  months,  the  legal  minimum  should  remain  four  months.52  It  is 
obvious  that  if  the  taxing  authorities  desired  to  evade  the  requirements 
of  the  law  the  way  was  open.  If  property  was  assessed  for  taxation 
at  only  a  small  fraction  of  its  actual  value,  the  school  taxes  might  easily 
have  reached  the  maximum  rate  allowed  by  law  without  yielding  enough 
revenue  to  finance  school  terms  of  five  months. 

From  1872  to  1887  the  minimum  term  remained  unchanged.  At  var- 
ious times  the  school  officers  advised  the  legislature  that  more  regular 
and  longer  operation  should  be  required,53  but,  since  the  legislature  did 

"  Act  9  April,  1872,  P.L.  p.  46. 

•»  See,  for  example,  Supt.  of  Public  Instruction,  Report  (1882),  p.  x;  (1886),  p.  106. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  171 

not  desire  to  increase  the  subvention,  it  was  probably  unwilling  to  raise 
the  requirement.  In  1887,  however,  when  a  substantial  increase  was 
added  to  the  state  appropriation,  the  requirement  was  advanced  to 
six  months.54  Like  the  act  of  1872,  that  of  1887  permitted  districts 
to  receive  the  subvention  without  complying  with  the  requirement  for 
a  term  of  six  months,  if  they  could  show  that  they  were  already  levying 
the  maximum  tax  allowed  by  law.55 

In  1891,  when  the  legislature  appropriated  $5,000,000  annually  for 
the  common  schools,56  no  increase  of  the  school  term  was  required. 
However,  the  more  liberal  state  aid  accompanied  by  larger  tax  revenues 
caused  a  majority  of  the  districts  to  lengthen  the  school  year.  In  1887 
the  average  length  of  term  for  all  districts  was  6.71  months  and  in  1895 
it  was  7.62  months.57  But  many  districts  retained  the  shorter  term 
and  the  state  superintendent  strongly  recommended  that  the  minimum 
be  increased.58  During  the  'nineties,  the  superintendent  apparently 
refused  to  face  the  facts  and  wrote  as  though  he  believed  that  the  princi- 
pal purpose  of  the  legislature  in  making  larger  appropriations  was  to 
increase  the  efficiency  of  the  schools.  As  we  have  shown,  however,  the 
chief  cause  of  the  increased  subventions  at  that  time  was  the  desire  to 
relieve  the  local  taxpayers.  Naturally,  therefore,  the  legislature  refused 
to  take  any  action,  such  as  increasing  the  minimum  term,  that  would 
offset  the  relief  thus  provided. 

In  1897,  when  the  proposal  to  change  the  method  of  distribution  was 
before  the  General  Assembly,  a  bill  to  increase  the  minimum  term  was 
also  introduced.  In  favor  of  this  proposal  it  was  argued  that  the  larger 
state  appropriation  should  result  in  a  longer  period  of  schooling  for  all 
children.  Opposition  to  the  measure  came  from  those  who  objected  to 
increasing  the  tax  burden  of  the  owners  of  real  estate.59  It  was  urged 
against  the  bill  that,  since  the  additional  appropriation  had  been  voted 
to  relieve  local  taxpayers,  a  requirement  that  the  poorer  districts  should 
maintain  schools  for  seven  months  would  offset  that  relief.60  In  fact, 

84  Act  19  May,  1887,  P.L.  p.  139. 

66  Ibid. 

*  Act  9  June,  1891,  P.L.  p.  273. 

"  Supt.  Public  Instruction,  Report  (1914),  p.  616. 

68  Report  (1890),  p.  iv;  (1891),  p.  vi. 

49  Mr.  Hammond,  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  23  March,  1897,  Legislative 
Record,  p.  916. 

60  Mr.  Morrow,  idem,  p.  915. 


172  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

a  majority  of  the  objections  to  the  bill  centered  on  the  question  of  in- 
creased local  taxation.61  The  opposition  was  strong  enough  to  defeat 
the  measure  by  a  comfortable  margin. 

At  the  next  session  of  the  General  Assembly,  in  1899,  the  advocates 
of  the  longer  school  term  succeeded  in  getting  the  minimum  increased 
to  seven  months.  The  precedent  established  by  the  acts  of  1872  and 
1887  was  again  followed  and  districts  that  already  levied  the  maximum 
tax  were  exempted  from  the  seven  months  rule.62  Although  defeated 
in  1899,  those  who  objected  to  placing  additional  requirements  upon  the 
districts  returned  to  the  fight  in  1901.  A  bill  was  introduced  in  the  House 
of  Representatives  to  substitute  the  old  minimum  of  six  months.  But 
the  measure  had  no  prospect  of  success  and  was  indefinitely  postponed.63 

No  further  changes  were  made  in  this  requirement  until  ten  years 
later,  when  the  School  Code  was  adopted.  By  this  act  the  existing  min- 
imum of  seven  months  was  retained  for  the  rural  districts,  while  longer 
terms  were  required  of  the  districts  that  included  the  more  densely  popu- 
lated parts  of  the  state.  School  districts  were  divided  into  four  classes  ac- 
cording to  population.  Districts  having  a  population  of  500,000  or  more, 
constituted  the  first  class;  those  having  a  population  of  30,000,  to  500,000, 
the  second  class;  those  having  a  population  of  5,000  to  30,000,  the  third 
class;  and  all  districts  having  less  than  5,000,  the  fourth  class.64  In 
districts  of  the  first  and  second  classes,  the  minimum  term  for  both 
elementary  and  high  schools  was  made  nine  months;  in  those  of  the 
third  class,  eight  months;  and  in  those  of  the  fourth  class,  seven  months.65 

By  this  classification  the  more  sparsely  settled  districts  were  partially 
relieved  of  the  requirements  placed  upon  the  more  populous  sections  of 
the  state.  Moreover,  as  has  been  explained,66  the  method  of  distribution 
was  also  modified  in  favor  of  the  weaker  districts  at  the  same  time.  In 
short,  the  legislation  of  the  years  1897  to  1911  gave  the  country  com- 
munities the  benefit  of  larger  appropriations,  as  well  as  a  larger  propor- 
tion of  these  appropriations,  and  at  the  same  time  authorized  them  to 
receive  the  subvention  by  complying  with  easier  conditions  than  those 
required  of  the  city  districts. 

61  See  statements  made  in  debate,  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  23  March, 
1897,  by  Martin,  McNees,  and  J.  C.  Wilson,  Legislative  Record,  pp.  912-913. 

62  Act  4  April,  1899,  P.L.  p.  31. 

63  Legislative  Record,  p.  2339,  col.  2. 

64  Act  18  May,  1911,  P.L.  p.  310. 
95  Idem,  P.L.  p.  393. 

66  Supra,  p.  169. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  173 

Another  important  aspect  of  the  educational  policy  of  the  districts 
brought  under  the  control  of  the  state  during  the  latter  part  of  this 
period  was  the  remuneration  of  teachers.  When  the  annual  appropria- 
tion was  increased  from  #2,000,000  to  #5,000,000,  by  the  law  of  1891,67 
the  teachers  throughout  the  state  seem  to  have  anticipated  substantial 
increases  in  salaries.  But  only  very  moderate  increases  were  provided 
by  the  boards  of  directors  of  the  various  districts.68  During  the  years 
1882  to  1887  the  average  monthly  wage  of  male  teachers  increased  from 
#34.35  to  #37. 10.69  In  1895,  after  the  liberal  additions  to  the  subven- 
tion, it  had  increased  to  only  #41.78.70  The  average  monthly  wage  of 
female  teachers  increased  even  less  in  absolute  amount.  It  was  #27.19 
in  1882,  #29.29  in  1887,  and  #32.70  in  1895.71  Insofar  as  the  average 
is  a  good  index  of  the  movement  of  wages,  it  is  clear  that  the  augmented 
subvention  had  little  effect  upon  the  pay  of  the  teachers. 

The  reasons  for  the  failure  of  the  larger  state  appropriation  sub- 
stantially to  benefit  the  teachers  were  two.  In  some  districts  the  addi- 
tional funds  advanced  by  the  state  were  offset  by  a  reduction  of  the  local 
tax  rate;  in  others  the  money  was  extravagantly  expended  for  the  pur- 
chase of  useless  equipment;  and  in  still  others  it  was  used  to  provide 
buildings  or  to  pay  off  existing  indebtedness.72  An  estimate  made  by  the 
state  superintendent,  in  1893,  placed  the  amount  used  for  additional 
salaries  at  #702,000.  About  #778,000  went  for  building  and  rentals, 
and  #1,072,000  for  fuel  and  "contingencies,"  interest,  and  repayment  of 
debts.  The  remainder  of  the  #3,000,000  additional  appropriation  re- 
ceived in  that  year  was  supposed  to  have  accumulated  in  the  treasuries 
of  the  various  districts.73 

The  declining  proportion  of  the  total  payments  going  for  teachers' 
wages  in  the  various  districts  is  exhibited  in  the  following  table: 

67  Sec.  10,  Act  9  June,  1891,  P.L.  p.  273. 

68  Supt.  of  Public  Instruction,  Report  (1893),  p.  viii.    The  superintendent  com- 
plained that  the  subvention  did  not  produce  "the  effects  which  ardent  friends  of  the 
public  schools  had  expected."    These  "effects"  were  a  longer  average  school  term 
and  higher  salaries. 

69  Report  (1914),  p.  616. 

70  Ibid. 

71  Ibid. 

72  Report  (1893),  p.  viii. 

73  Report  (1893),  p.  viii.    These  calculations  were  intended  to  account  for  the  addi- 
tional $3,000,000  payable  for  the  school  year  of  1892-1893. 


174 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 


COUNTIES  CLASSIFIED  ACCORDING  TO  THE  PROPORTION  OF  TOTAL 

COMMON  SCHOOL  EXPENDITURES  PAID  FOR 

TEACHERS'  WAGES  IN  1888  AND  IN  1894 


Classification  of  Counties 

Number  of  Counties 
18881            18942 

Those  paying  25%  and  not  over  29.9% 

0 

1 

"     30%    "       "      "  34.9% 

0 

0 

"     35%    "       "      "  39.9% 

0 

2 

"          "     40%    "       "      "  44.9% 

2 

10 

"    45%    "       "      "  49.9% 

4 

8 

"    50%     "       "      "  54.9% 

5 

29 

"     55%    "       "      "  59.9% 

16 

14 

"     60%    "       "      "  64.9% 

20 

3 

"     65%    "      "      "  69.9% 

15 

0 

"     70%    "       "      "  74.9% 

5 

0 

Total  number  of  counties  included  67.  3 

1  Supt.  of  Public  Instruction,  Report  (1888),  Tabular  Statement  of  Counties  for 
the  School  Year  ending  June  4,  1888,  pp.  186-193. 

2  Idem,  Report  (1894),  Tabular  Statement  of  Counties  for  the  School  Year  Ending 
June  4,  1894,  p.  531. 

3  Philadelphia  is  included. 


The  table  shows  that  in  1888  forty  of  the  sixty-seven  counties  paid 
out  60  per  cent  or  more  of  their  expenditures  for  teachers'  salaries.  In 
1894,  however,  only  three  counties  expended  so  large  a  proportion  for 
that  purpose. 

It  may  be  asked  whether  there  was  any  justification  for  the  demand 
for  higher  wages  for  teachers.  This  question  the  superintendent  ans- 
wered by  pointing  out  that  a  majority  of  the  teachers  were  not  well 
enough  equipped  to  serve  the  schools  efficiently.  And,  in  his  opinion,, 
the  salaries  commonly  paid  were  too  low  to  induce  the  typical  school 
teacher  to  secure  better  general  education  or  better  professional  train- 
ing.74 The  latter  opinion  cannot,  of  course,  be  conclusively  proved,  but, 
in  view  of  the  fact  that  many  teachers  were  paid  less  than  twenty-five 
dollars  a  month,  it  cannot,  on  the  other  hand,  be  far  from  correct.75 

74  Report  (1893),  p.  viii,  et  passim. 

75  Thus  in  Fulton  County,  hi  1895,  the  average  monthly  wage  of  the  32  women 
teachers  employed  was  $20.61.     Supt.  of  Public  Instruction,  Report  (1895),  p.  396.     In 
Wyoming  County,  the  average  for  89  women  teachers  was  $22.19.    Of  the  thirty 
districts  in  that  county  but  ten  paid  an  average  wage  in  excess  of  $25.00  to  women. 
Idem,  pp.  572-573. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  175 

That  the  great  body  of  teachers  was  not  well  trained  is  shown  by  the 
fact  that  more  than  one-third  of  the  total  number  employed  within  the 
state  had  attended  only  the  common  elementary  schools.76  Over  one- 
half  held  certificates  of  the  lowest  grade,  and  less  than  one-fourth  were 
graduates  of  colleges,  normal  schools,  academies,  or  seminaries.77 

Insofar  as  the  subvention  was  used  to  reduce  taxes,  the  school  officers 
were  merely  acting  in  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  the  terms  of  the  com- 
promise which  was  implicit  in  the  revenue  legislation  of  1887  to  1893. 78 
The  additional  subventions  were  made  for  the  relief  of  the  local  tax- 
payer, and,  therefore,  the  local  authorities  could  not  be  blamed  because 
they  used  them  for  that  purpose.  So,  too,  no  evidence  was  presented  by 
the  state  superintendent  to  show  that  the  portion  of  the  additional  state 
aid  which  was  used  to  pay  off  debts  or  to  improve  school  buildings  was 
unwisely  expended. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  is  evidence  to  show  that  the  extra  state  money 
which  came  to  many  districts  during  the  years  1889  to  1896  was  extra- 
vagantly, or  even  dishonestly  disbursed.  The  following  quotation  from 
the  annual  report  of  the  superintendent  for  1896  explains  in  somewhat 
lurid  language  the  different  ways  in  which  the  money  was  expended: 
"No  sooner  was  our  school  appropriation  raised  to  five  million  dollars 
than  the  sharks  began  to  scent  prey  from  afar.  First  came  the  agent 
with  charts  for  teaching  physiology,  which  were  sold  at  high  figures  so  as 
to  permit,  when  necessary,  the  payment  of  large  commissions  to  sub- 
agents  and  liberal  fees  to  directors'  sons  for  delivering  the  same  to  the 
various  school  houses  in  the  district.  .  .  .  Next  came  the  block  man 
selling  lumber  at  fancy  prices  in  the  shape  of  geometrical  forms,  which 
the  skillful  teacher  constructs  out  of  paper  in  so  far  as  she  needs  them  in 
the  elementary  school.  Finally  came  the  map  man  selling  relief  maps  at 
one  hundred  dollars  per  set."79  Of  course,  the  superintendent  did  not 
pretend  that  all  this  equipment  was  worthless.  It  was,  however,  fre- 
quently neither  well  designed,  nor  well  adapted  for  use  in  the  elementary 
schools.  In  nearly  every  case  the  prices  paid  were  too  high.  And, 
finally,  such  equipment  was  not  a  substitute  for  good  teachers,  which 
many  of  the  districts  lacked.80 

78  Supt.  of  Public  Instruction,  Report  (1893),  p.  viii. 

77  Ibid. 

78  See  Chapter  VI,  p.  150. 

79  Report  (1896),  pp.  xix-xx. 
90  Ibid. 


176 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 


During  the  years  following  1894,  the  average  wages  of  teachers  in- 
creased slowly  but  no  substantial  advance  is  shown  until,  in  1903,  the 
legislature  intervened  with  a  minimum  salary  law.  The  trend  of  wages 
is  shown  in  the  following  table: 

AVERAGE  MONTHLY  WAGES  OF  MALE  AND  FEMALE  TEACHERS,  FOR 
ALL  SCHOOLS  IN  PENNSYLVANIA,  PHILADELPHIA  EX- 
CLUDED, FOR  THE  YEARS  1894  TO  1916' 


Average  monthly 

Average  monthly 

wages 

wages 

Year 

Year 

Male 

Female 

Male 

Female 

teachers 

teachers 

teachers 

teachers 

1894 

$41.84 

$32.55 

1906 

$51.36 

$38.92 

1895 

41.78 

32.70 

1907 

52.82 

39.47 

1896 

41.80 

32.78 

1908 

59.66 

45.92 

1897 

41.71 

32.86 

1909 

60.65 

46.60 

1898 

41.06 

32.50 

1910 

61.94 

46.99 

1899 

41.68 

32.73 

1911 

62.75 

47.41 

1900 

41.62 

32.66 

1912 

63.65 

47.93 

1901 

42.14 

33.08 

1913 

64.45 

48.21 

1902 

42.98 

33.34 

1914 

66.71 

48.86 

1903 

44.77 

34.10 

1915 

66.94 

49.47 

1904 

47.12 

35.09 

1916 

67.17 

49.89 

1905 

49.91 

38.55 

1  Supt.  of  Public  Instruction,  Report  (1916),  p.  650.  The  data  of  this  table  are 
open  to  the  common  objection  to  the  use  of  the  arithmetic  average  for  wage  compari- 
sons. The  figures  are  given  as  found  in  the  Report.  It  is  not  probable  that  the  data 
are  accurate  enough  to  warrant  conclusions  based  upon  small  differences,  but  they  are 
sufficiently  reliable  for  very  rough  generalizations. 


After  the  fall  in  the  purchasing  power  of  money  began  to  reduce  the 
real  wages  of  teachers  the  demands  of  the  state  superintendent  that 
salaries  be  increased  became  more  insistent.  In  1902  he  advised  the 
legislature  that  the  substantially  higher  wages,  which  the  teachers 
deserved,  would  come  only  through  state  action.  In  justification  of  his 
recommendation  that  a  minimum  salary  law  be  enacted  he  pointed  out 
that  many  of  the  most  beneficial  reforms  of  the  school  system  had  been 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  177 

forced  on  the  districts  by  state-wide  laws.  In  his  opinion,  "The  law 
has  [had]  always  been  a  schoolmaster  in  Pennsylvania.  "81 

In  1903  a  bill  was  introduced  in  the  legislature  to  require  districts  to 
pay  their  teachers  a  minimum  salary.  During  the  debate  on  the  bill 
in  the  Senate  numerous  objections  to  the  measure  were  advanced.  One 
member  protested  that  such  a  law  would  violate  the  established  principle 
of  home  rule  in  local  affairs.82  Another  opposed  the  measure  because  he 
believed  that  a  law  regulating  wages  would  establish  a  dangerous  pre- 
cedent.83 It  was  also  asserted  that  the  farming  communities  were  unable 
to  pay  higher  salaries,  and  that  from  one  hundred  to  two  hundred  dis- 
tricts would  be  compelled  to  discontinue  their  schools.84 

Arguments  in  favor  of  the  bill  were  few  in  number  but  forceful.  It 
was  commonly  asserted  and  generally  admitted  that  the  salary  scale  in 
country  districts  was  often  too  low  to  attract  competent  teachers.  Fur- 
thermore, it  was  not  denied  by  the  most  determined  opponents  of  the 
measure  that  many  districts  received  from  the  subvention  the  major  part 
of  their  salary  budgets.  The  reports  from  the  county  superintendents 
for  1888  show  that  in  no  county  did  the  total  amount  received  by  the 
districts  from  the  subvention  exceed  30  per  cent  of  the  salary  budget.85 
In  1894,  however,  in  all  but  twelve  counties  the  state  subvention  exceeded 
50  per  cent  of  the  salary  budget,  and  in  fourteen  counties  it  exceeded 
70  per  cent.  In  two  counties  it  exceeded  95  per  cent.86  Such  were  the 
facts  for  the  year  1894,  and  conditions  were  not  much  different  during 
the  first  half  of  the  decade  1900  to  1910.87 

In  spite  of  the  objections  raised  by  the  rural  districts  the  bill  became 
a  law.  This  law  required  districts  to  pay  at  least  thirty-five  dollars  a 
month  to  all  teachers  regularly  employed.88  Boards  of  directors  or  con- 
trollers were  required  to  report  under  oath  whether  they  had  complied 

81  Report  (1902),  p.  vii. 

82  Mr.  Focht,  1  April,  1903,  Legislative  Record,  p  2605,  col.  2. 

83  Mr.  Sisson,  idem,  p.  2607,  col.  2. 

84  Mr.  Cummings,  idem,  p.  2604. 

K'Supt.  of  Public  Instruction,  Report  (1888),  Tabular  Statement  of  Counties  for 
the  School  Year  ending  June  4,  1888,  pp.  186-193.  These  data  are  for  the  districts 
of  each  county  taken  as  a  unit. 

86  Idem,  Report  (1894),  Tabular  Statement  of  Counties,  for  the  School  Year  ending 
June  4,  1894,  pp.  524-531. 

87  See  a  statement  by  Mr.  Young,  in  the  Senate,  1  May,  1907,  Legislative  Record, 
p.  3804,  col.  2. 

»  Sec.  1,  Act  9  April,  1903,  P.L.  p.  162. 


178  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

with  the  provisions  of  the  act,89  and  if  any  district  failed  to  observe  the 
requirements  of  the  law  it  thereby  forfeited  its  share  in  the  state  appro- 
priation for  the  year  in  which  its  non-compliance  occurred.90  The  effect 
of  this  law  is  quite  apparent  from  the  data  given  in  the  table  on  page 
176. 

In  1907,  when  the  annual  state  appropriation  for  common  schools 
was  increased  to  over  $6,000,000,  91  another  minimum  salary  act  was 
passed  to  insure  that  the  funds  would  be  used  to  increase  the  efficiency 
of  the  schools.  By  this  law  the  districts  were  required  to  pay  $50.00  a 
month  to  all  teachers  who  held  professional  or  permanent  certificates, 
and  who  had,  in  addition,  received  from  county  or  district  superinten- 
dents a  certificate  of  proficiency,  which  was  based  on  two  years'  successful 
teaching.  The  minimum  wage  for  all  other  teachers  was  increased  to 
$40.00  a  month.92 

As  in  1903,  the  representatives  of  some  of  the  rural  communities 
objected  to  imposing  on  the  poorer  districts  the  additional  expense  that 
would  result  from  the  payment  of  higher  salaries.93  Objections  from  this 
source  were,  however,  overcome  by  providing  that  the  state  should  pay 
any  additional  expense  imposed  on  the  districts  by  the  new  law.  The 
amount  necessary  for  this  purpose  was  to  be  deducted  from  the  total 
appropriation  for  common  schools  before  it  was  apportioned  to  the  dis- 
tricts, and  the  remainder  was  then  to  be  distributed  in  the  usual  manner.94 
It  was  estimated  that  the  additional  aid  thus  provided  for  the  poorer 
districts  would  amount  to  $856,000.95 

Two  highly  desirable  results  came  from  the  act  of  1907.  In  the  first 
place  the  districts  were  able,  with  the  aid  of  the  state,  to  pay  higher 
salaries.  In  the  second  place  the  higher  salary  which  the  districts  were 
required  to  pay  to  those  holding  professional  or  permanent  certificates 

89  Sec.  2,  Act  9  April,  1903,  P.L.  p.  162. 


91  Sec.  8,  Act  14  June,  1907,  P.L.  pp.  790-791.    Section  8  of  this  act  appropriated 
$15,000,000  for  the  support  of  education  during  the  two  years  1907-1909.    After  de- 
ducting the  amounts  voted  for  students  in  normal  schools,  for  high  schools,  and  for 
the  salaries  of  county  superintendents,  the  annual  appropriation  remaining  for  the 
common  schools  was  $6,245,000.    This  was  subject,  however,  to  a  number  of  minor 
deductions  not  enumerated  in  the  appropriation  bill. 

92  Act  31  May,  1907,  P.L.  p.  336. 

93  See  statements  of  Mr.  Snyder,  Legislative  Record,  p.  3804,  col.  3;  of  Mr.  Hitch- 
cock, idem,  p.  3803,  col.  2;  and  of  Mr.  Carrol,  idem,  p.  3805. 

"  Sec.  3,  Act  31  May,  1907,  P.L.  p.  336. 

95  Supt.  of  Public  Instruction,  Report  (1907),  p.  vii. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  179 

and  certificates  of  proficiency  caused  many  teachers  to  seek  to  meet  these 
conditions.  The  effect  of  the  law  was  thus  to  give  the  teacher  a  strong 
incentive  for  improving  his  educational  and  professional  training.96 

A  further  increase  of  minimum  salaries  at  some  indefinite  date  in  the 
future  was  provided  for  in  the  School  Code  of  1911.  Section  1211  of 
the  Code  required  the  minima  to  be  raised  to  $55.00  and  $45.00,  res- 
pectively, as  soon  as  the  General  Assembly  should  provide  the  funds 
necessary  for  such  increases.97  In  1917  the  legislature  again  took  up  the 
question  of  minimum  wages.  Teachers  were  divided  into  three  classes 
as  follows:  (1)  Those  holding  provisional  certificates;  (2)  those  holding 
professional  or  normal  school  certificates;  and  (3)  those  holding  perman- 
ent certificates  or  final  normal  school  diplomas.  Teachers  of  the 
first  class  must  be  paid  a  minimum  of  $45.00  a  month;  those  of  the  second 
class  $55.00  a  month;  and  those  of  the  third  $60.00  a  month.98 

As  a  result  of  this  legislation,  the  monthly  wage  of  practically  all  the 
teachers  has  been  brought  up  to  the  minimum  rates.  Unfortunately 
however,  too  many  districts  seem  content  to  employ  teachers  who  cannot 
qualify  for  the  higher  rating  which  entitles  them  to  the  higher  sal- 
ary scales.  In  1914,  forty-seven  out  of  the  sixty-seven  counties 
in  the  state  reported  that  the  average  wage  for  female  teachers  was  less 
than  fifty  dollars,  and  in  two  counties  the  average  wage  of  male  teachers 
was  below  that  figure.99  In  Fulton  County,  for  instance,  eight  of  the 
twelve  districts  reported  the  average  wages  of  women  teachers  as  exactly 
$40.00  a  month.  These  districts  employed  29  of  the  41  women  teaching 
within  the  county.100  This  was  an  especially  backward  county,  but 
many  other  counties  that  did  not  have  large  towns  within  their  borders 
showed  but  slightly  higher  wage  rates.  The  facts  are  obvious:  rural 
districts  are  unwilling  to  tax  themselves  in  order  to  employ  first-class 
teachers. 

That  the  districts  which  refuse  to  increase  salaries,  are  actually  over- 
burdened by  taxation  may  well  be  doubted,  although  irrefutable  evidence 
to  substantiate  this  conclusion  is  lacking.  In  1914  a  committee  of  the 
State  Educational  Association  published  some  fragmentary  data  with 
reference  to  the  ratios  of  the  assessed  to  the  actual  sale  values  of  property 

98  Supt.  of  Public  Instruction,  Report  (1908),  pp.  vi,  111. 
87  Act  18  May,  1911,  P.L.  p.  374. 

98  Act  28  July,  1917,  P.L.  1235. 

99  Supt.  of  Public  Instruction,  Report  (1914),  Tabular  Statement  of  Counties  for 
the  School  Year  ending  July  6,  1914,  pp.  612-613. 

100  Idem,  p.  496. 


180 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 


taxable  for  school  purposes.  In  so  far  as  these  data  are  accurate  they 
show  that  high  rates  of  taxation  are  to  be  found  in  those  counties  that 
assess  property  at  much  less  than  its  actual  selling  value. 

RATIOS  OF  ASSESSED  TO  SALE  VALUES,  AND  THE  AVERAGE  RATES  OF 

TAXATION  FOR  SCHOOL  PURPOSES  IN  CERTAIN 

PENNSYLVANIA  COUNTIES,  1914 


Average 

Average 

Percentage 

rate  of 

Percentage 

rate  of 

of  real 

taxation 

of  real 

taxation 

County 

value 

for  school 

County 

value 

for  school 

actually 

purposes 

actually 

purposes 

assessed1 

(mills  on 

assessed1 

(mills  on 

the  dollar)2 

the  dollar) 

Adams 
Allegheny 

60-80 
80 

5.15 
6.34 

Lancaster 
^awrence 

75 
55-60 

4.44 
7.71 

Armstrong 

33% 

10.72 

^ebanon 

100 

5.04 

Blair 

66% 

8.81 

Aizerne 

70 

7.87 

Bradford 

75-80 

8.92 

lycoming 

40-60 

11.51 

Bucks 

75 

5.86 

McKean 

66% 

14.90 

Butler 

50 

8.35 

Monroe 

66% 

8.26 

Cambria 

100 

6.34 

Montgomery 

70 

5.79 

Carbon 

60 

7.84 

Northampton 

66%-75 

6.63 

Center 

66% 

10.02 

Northumberland 

60 

8.00 

Clarion 

50 

10.00 

Perry 

85 

6.50 

Clinton 

50 

8.17 

Pike 

33% 

10.66 

Columbia 

55-65 

9.93 

Potter 

75 

12.86 

Crawford 

50 

8.37 

Schuylkill 

45-50 

12.47 

Cumberland 

70 

6.42 

Somerset 

66% 

11.19 

Dauphin 

100 

6.89 

Sullivan 

33% 

18.15 

Elk 

25 

17.93 

Susquehanna 

33% 

16.85 

Erie 

60 

8.23 

Tioga 

75 

8.92 

Forest 

33% 

14.11 

Union 

75 

4.46 

Franklin 

70 

4.73 

Warren 

33%-50 

11.77 

Huntingdon 

40-60 

12.98 

Westmoreland 

80 

8.71 

Indiana 

33% 

10.92 

Wyoming 

50 

11.65 

Jefferson 

60 

11.52 

York 

66% 

5.98 

Lackawanna 

70-75 

7.12 

Philadelphia 

95 

5.00 

1  From   Pennsylvania  State  Educational   Association's  Report  on  Rural  Schools 
(1914),  p.  101. 


2  Supt.  of  Public  Instruction,  Report  (1914),  pp.  612-613. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  181 

The  table,  which  represents  forty-eight  of  the  sixty-seven  counties 
in  the  state,  shows  that  in  a  majority  of  those  counties  reporting  high 
average  rates  of  taxation  the  assessed  valuation  of  property  was  less 
than  one-half  its  real  or  full  sale-value.  It  may  be  assumed  that  all 
tax  rates  above  10  mills  are  abnormally  high  (the  average  for  all  the 
counties,  in  1914,  was  8.73  mills  on  the  dollar).  In  eleven  counties 
imposing  these  rates  property  was  assessed  at  less  than  one-half  its  real 
value.  In  five  the  percentage  of  real  value  actually  assessed  was  over 
fifty,  and  in  two  it  was  exactly  that  figure. 

There  was  no  clear  correlation  between  low  assessment,  high  tax 
rates,  and  low  salaries  for  the  year  1914  for  which  the  figures  are  given. 
Some  counties  such  as  Armstrong,  Huntingdon,  Pike  and  Sullivan,  which 
had  low  assessed  valuations  and  high  tax  rates,  paid  their  teachers  very 
low  wages.  But  in  other  counties  where  low  assessment  and  high  tax 
rates  prevailed,  as  in  Elk,  Forest  and  Schuylkill  the  wages  were  as 
high  or  higher  than  the  average  for  the  state.  Furthermore,  in  counties 
where  the  assessment  was  fairly  high  and  the  tax  rate  low,  as  in  York 
and  Adams,  wages  were  below  the  average. 

In  so  far  as  the  figures  warrant  any  conclusion,  we  may  say  that 
high  rates  of  taxation  for  school  purposes  are  likely  to  be  accompanied 
by  under-assessment  of  property.  But  under-assessment  is  not  always 
accompanied  by  low  teachers'  wages. 

The  discussion  of  methods  of  distributing  the  state  appropriation 
and  of  attempts  to  induce  the  localities  to  improve  the  schools  by  main- 
taining longer  terms  and  by  paying  better  salaries  to  teachers,  gives  rise 
to  some  significant  conclusions.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  evident  that  a 
subvention  to  common  schools  is  not  a  desirable  method  of  equalizing 
the  tax  burden  upon  the  different  types  of  property  that  are  taxed  by 
the  state  and  by  the  localities.  There  is  no  necessary  relation  between 
the  amount  of  property  subject  to  state  taxation  that  a  district  may  con- 
tain and  the  needs  of  that  district  for  revenue  for  school  purposes.  And 
no  system  of  distributing  school  funds  that  has  been  tried  in  Pennsylvania 
has  involved  an  attempt  to  work  justice  between  the  localities  in  this 
matter. 

Another  objection  to  this  method  of  equalization  is  its  tendency  to 
impede  the  use  of  the  subvention  for  raising  the  standard  of  the  schools. 
If  the  localities  are  told,  as  they  were  in  Pennsylvania  in  the  early  'nine- 
ties, that  the  subvention  is  a  substitute  for  local  taxation  of  corporate 
wealth,  it  becomes  very  difficult  to  prevail  upon  them  to  use  additional 
appropriations  for  improvements,  even  after  they  have  reduced  the  local 


182  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

tax  rate  to  a  fair  level.  If  all  the  people  in  the  districts  were  tax  payers 
and  if  all  were  desirous  of  improving  the  common  schools  this  might  not 
be  the  case.  But  when  the  impression  gets  abroad  that  the  state  sub- 
vention is  to  be  used  for  the  relief  of  local  taxation  people  are  likely  to 
forget  that  it  is  also  intended  as  assistance  in  raising  the  standard  of 
elementary  education.  Moreover,  if  a  large  proportion  of  those  whose 
children  attend  the  schools  pay  no  taxes,  it  is  but  natural  that  the  tax- 
payers should  seek  to  shift  the  burden  of  supporting  education. 

A  third  objection  arises  from  the  fact  that  where  the  funds  for  making 
the  subvention  are  derived  from  special  state  taxes  upon  railroads, 
banks,  and  the  like,  such  funds  must,  in  justice  to  the  owners  of  the 
property  subject  to  state  taxes,  be  limited  by  the  burden  imposed  upon 
property  subject  to  taxation  by  the  local  authorities.  A  state  and  its 
subordinate  divisions  cannot,  generally  speaking,  justly  tax  the  property 
or  the  income  of  the  owners  of  bank,  railroad  and  other  corporation 
securities  at  a  higher  rate  than  they  tax  the  property  or  income  of  the 
owners  of  real  estate.101  When,  therefore,  the  rate  of  taxation  upon  the 
incomes  of  security  holders  has  reached  the  average  rate  imposed 
by  the  localities  upon  other  property  or  income,  no  increase  of  the 
subvention  is  possible,  except  as  the  wealth  subject  to  state  taxation 
increases.  Yet  it  may  be  highly  desirable  to  increase  the  state  appro- 
priation for  common  or  other  schools. 

A  further  conclusion  is  that  an  increase  of  the  subvention  does  not 
result  in  a  state-wide  improvement  of  the  service  aided,  unless  it  is 
accompanied  by  regulations  that  make  conformity  to  certain  standards 
of  performance  an  absolute  prerequisite  for  participation  in  state  aid. 
It  has  been  the  experience  of  Pennsylvania  that  too  often  the  additional 
state  appropriations  have  either  been  extravagantly  expended  or  used 
to  relieve  the  residents  of  the  districts  of  responsibility  for  supporting 
schools.  In  short,  in  many  cases  the  state  money  pauperized  the  dis- 
tricts receiving  it. 

Finally,  the  history  of  the  subvention  to  common  schools  in  Penn- 
sylvania shows  that  in  making  regulations  for  the  districts  the  state  is 
more  likely  to  follow  than  to  lead.  The  minimum  term  was  advanced 
only  after  a  majority  of  the  districts  had  already  been  keeping  their 

101  This  statement  assumes  (1)  that  the  rates  of  public  service  enterprises  are 
reasonable;  (2)  that,  as  is  usually  the  case,  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  all  the 
stockholders  are  wealthier  than  the  owners  of  property  taxed  locally;  (3)  that  the 
corporations  are  conducting  businesses  to  which  no  objections  can  be  raised  on  the 
grounds  of  health,  morals  or  general  welfare. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  183 

schools  open  for  a  period  as  long  or  longer  than  the  new  minimum.  So 
too,  in  the  case  of  the  minimum  salary  acts,  the  law  did  not  set  the  pace 
for  the  majority  of  the  districts;  it  only  assisted  the  laggards. 

In  addition  to  the  regulations  concerning  the  length  of  the  school 
term  and  the  salary  of  teachers,  a  number  of  less  important  restrictions 
were  imposed  by  the  state  during  the  four  decades  under  consideration. 
Among  those  minor  regulations  the  most  important  is  that  which  pro- 
vides for  the  compulsory  attendance  of  children  at  some  school  for  a 
portion  of  each  year. 

Although  the  superintendent  had  pointed  out,  in  1874,  that  a  large 
number  of  children  was  being  denied  the  benefit  of  education,  no  action 
was  taken  by  the  legislature  until  1895,  when  the  first  law  compelling 
attendance  was  enacted.102  The  law  was  not  universal  in  its  application, 
since  a  number  of  exceptions  were  made  through  which  a  parent  might 
legally  refrain  from  sending  his  child  to  school. 

In  1901,  an  entirely  new  act  was  passed,  which  not  only  required  the 
attendance  of  all  children  between  the  ages  of  eight  and  sixteen  years, 
but  also  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  state  superintendent  a  means  by  which 
compliance  with  the  law  might  be  enforced.  He  was  empowered  to 
withhold  one-fourth  of  the  state  appropriation  due  any  district  whose 
officers  neglected  or  refused  to  enforce  this  law.  As  in  the  act  of  1895, 
the  law  permitted  some  exceptions  and  attendance  at  a  private  school 
was  equivalent  to  attendance  at  the  public  schools.103 

The  School  Code  of  1911  provides  that  all  children  between  the  ages 
of  eight  and  sixteen  years  shall  attend  a  day  school  in  which  the  "  common 
English  branches"  are  taught.104  The  exceptions  to  the  requirement 
include  cases  where  children  are  prevented  from  attending  school  on 
account  of  "any  mental,  physical,  or  other  urgent  reasons.  "105  Children 
between  the  ages  of  fourteen  and  sixteen  may  be  excused  from  attendance 
if  they  can  "read  and  write  intelligently"  and  are  employed  in  a  useful 
and  lawful  service.  Enforcement  of  the  law  is  intrusted  to  the  local 
authorities,  but  the  state  superintendent  is  authorized  to  withhold  all 

102  Act  16  May,  1895,  P.L.  p.  74. 

103  Act  11  July,  1901,  P.L.  pp.  658  ff. 

1MSec.  1414,  Act  18  May,  1911,  P.L.  pp.  383  ff.  Regular  daily  instruction  in 
the  English  language  by  a  private  tutor  is  declared  to  fulfil  the  requirements  of  the 
act  if  such  instruction  is  considered  satisfactory  by  the  county  or  district  superinten- 
dent having  jurisdiction. 

106  Sec.  1415,  idem,  p.  384. 


184  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

or  any  part  of  the  state  aid  due  a  district  whose  officers  refuse  or  neglect 
to  enforce  the  law  in  a  manner  that  meets  with  his  approval.106 

Another  matter  that  has  been  made  subject  to  state  regulation  in 
recent  years  is  the  sanitation  of  school  buildings  and  grounds.  The 
School  Code  of  1911  contains  a  number  of  sections  dealing  with  this  sub- 
ject. The  ultimate  authority  in  determining  whether  the  district  officers 
comply  with  the  law  is  the  state  superintendent.  He  is  given  the  power 
to  condemn  as  unfit  for  use,  on  account  of  insanitary  or  other  improper 
conditions,  any  school  building  or  school  site.  If  the  district  fails  to 
remedy  the  conditions  deemed  improper,  he  may  withhold  all  or  a  part 
of  the  district's  share  in  the  annual  state  appropriation.107 

There  is  some  evidence  to  show  that  the  State  Board  of  Education  is 
active  in  calling  the  attention  of  the  localities  to  insanitary  or  undesirable 
conditions  existing  in  or  about  school  buildings.  In  1914  the  state  sup- 
erintendent reported  that  pressure  from  the  board  had  caused  a  number 
of  districts  to  make  needed  improvements.108 

No  minimum  requirement  as  to  the  rate  of  taxation  that  a  district 
must  levy  for  school  purposes  has  been  imposed,  except  in  districts  of  the 
first  class.  Since  this  class  includes  only  those  districts  having  a  popu- 
lation of  500,000  or  over,  the  application  of  the  law  is  obviously  limited.109 
The  state  has,  on  the  other  hand,  been  very  careful  to  prescribe  maximum 
rates.  In  districts  of  the  first  class  the  maximum  is  six  mills  on  the 
dollar;  in  those  of  the  second  class  (population  30,000  to  500,000)  it  is 
twenty  mills,  and  in  all  other  districts  it  is  twenty-five  mills.110 

Audit  of  the  accounts  of  the  local  school  boards  remains  in  charge  of 
local  officers.  The  state  has,  therefore,  only  an  indirect  audit  of  the 
accounting  for  funds  appropriated  by  it  for  the  support  of  the  schools. 
Minor  irregularities  doubtless  exist.  But  the  practice  of  gross  frauds, 
such  as  occurred  previous  to  1854,  is  no  longer  in  evidence.  The  require- 
ment of  elaborate  reports  and  the  presence  of  the  county  and  district 
superintendents  seem  to  be  effective  checks  upon  the  directors. 

There  exists,  of  course,  a  large  number  of  regulations  in  addition  to  those 
we  have  considered.  They  do  not,  however,  directly  concern  the  financial 

108  Sec.  1431,  Act  18  May,  1911,  P.L.  p.  389. 
107  Sec.  1017,  idem,  P.L.  pp.  360-361. 

101  Report  (1914),  p.  3. 

109  Districts  of  the  first  class  must  levy  at  least  five  mills  on  the  dollar,  but  not 
over  six  mills.    Sec.  524,  Act  18  May,  191 1,  P.L.  p.  337. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  185 

relations  of  the  state  to  the  school  system  nor  is  the  subvention  used  as 
a  means  to  enforce  their  observance  by  the  districts. 

STATE  AID  TO  HIGH  SCHOOLS 

The  establishment  of  high  schools  in  Pennsylvania  preceded  the  first 
special  state  appropriation  for  their  benefit  by  more  than  sixty  years. 
Philadelphia  was  authorized  to  organize  and  to  support  a  Central  High 
School  in  1836.111  Several  other  cities  very  early  opened  schools  that 
provided  instruction  in  the  more  advanced  subjects.  All  these  advanced 
schools  were  assisted  by  the  state  through  the  subvention  to  common 
schools.  This  came  about  because  the  legislature  did  not  limit  the  use 
of  the  state  appropriation  to  the  support  of  the  elementary  schools.  A 
district's  proportion  depended  upon  the  number  of  taxables  it  contained, 
and  after  the  funds  were  paid  over  to  the  local  officials,  there  was  nothing 
in  the  laws  to  prevent  their  being  used  to  support  both  elementary  and 
secondary  education.  The  state  superintendents  seem,  during  the  period 
before  1857,  to  have  been  well  aware  that  a  portion  of  the  state's  money 
was  being  used  by  the  cities  to  finance  high  schools.  But  these  officers 
were  far  from  objecting  to  a  practice  that,  though  probably  not  con- 
templated by  the  laws,  was  productive  of  desirable  results.112 

During  the  period  before  1874,  certain  cities  were  given  the  power 
by  special  laws  to  provide  for  high  schools,  and  in  1887  the  legislature 
passed  an  act  that  authorized  all  cities  and  boroughs  to  establish  and 
maintain  them.113  In  1895  the  legislature  authorized  the  directors  or 
controllers  of  any  school  district  to  establish  a  high  school.114  Two  or 
more  townships  (i.e.,  rural  districts)  were  permitted  to  co-operate  in 
forming  a  joint  high  school.  When  any  township  high  school  was  estab- 
lished and  when  provision  had  been  made  for  instruction  in  branches 
required  by  the  state  superintendent,  it  became  entitled  to  state  aid.115 
According  to  this  law  the  high  schools  were  divided  into  three  classes, 
or  grades,  depending  upon  the  number  of  years  required  to  complete 
the  course.116  It  was  six  years,  however,  before  the  legislature  made  an 

mWickersham,p.  343. 
112  Wickersham,  p.  272. 
»13  Act  13  May,  1887,  P.L.  p.  104. 

114  Act  28  June,  1895,  P.L.  p.  413. 

115  Ibid. 

116  High  Schools  providing  a  four  year  course  ....1st  class. 

three  "         »     ....2nd  class. 
two     "         "     ....3d  class. 

First  class  schools  were  entitled  to  $800  annually,  second  class,  $600,  and  third 
class,  $400.  Act  28  June,  1895,  P.L.  p.  413. 


186  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

appropriation  to  carry  into  effect  the  provisions  of  the  act  of  1895.  117 

An  act,  passed  in  1901,  permitted  any  township  that  centralized  its 
schools  to  provide  a  high  school.118  In  the  same  year  $50,000  was  appro- 
priated for  the  aid  of  all  township  high  schools,119  but  this  appropriation 
proved  inadequate  to  meet  all  the  applications  coming  to  the  state  super- 
intendent from  schools  able  to  meet  the  requirements.  Only  75  per  cent 
of  the  amount  to  which  each  school  was  entitled  by  law  was  actually 
paid  during  the  year  1901-1902.120 

The  superintendent  was  of  the  opinion  that  this  appropriation,  though 
small  and  inadequate,  was  very  effective  for  good  results.  It  not  only 
gave  many  of  the  children  in  rural  districts  the  benefit  of  a  better  educa- 
tion, but  also  awakened  public  interest  in  matters  educational  by  assist- 
ing the  people  to  improve  the  schools.121  "The  schools,"  he  wrote, 
"make  progress  whenever  the  state's  money  stimulates  local  sacrifice; 
they  deteriorate  whenever  the  state  appropriation  is  used  to  reduce  local 
taxation  or  is  squandered  in  the  purchase  of  fanciful  apparatus  and  other 
questionable  appliances."122  Whatever  we  may  think  of  the  latter  propo- 
sition, we  must  give  unqualified  assent  to  the  former.  The  subvention 
to  schools  has  accomplished  most  in  Pennsylvania  when  it  has  been  of- 
fered as  a  premium  to  localities  that  were  willing  to  make  some  sacrifice 
in  order  to  introduce  improvements. 

In  1902  only  66  districts,  or  co-operation  districts,  were  reported 
as  eligible  to  receive  the  subvention  to  township  high  schools.123  But 
in  1903  the  number  was  12  1.124  Since  that  date  the  increase  has  been 
rapid.125 

Borough  high  schools  were  not  assisted  until  1907,  when  the  legisla- 
ture appropriated  $230,000  to  be  distributed  among  them  according  to 
the  plan  determined  upon  in  1895.  126  In  that  year  township  high  schools 
were  voted  $275,000.127  The  progress  of  the  subvention  to  high  schools 
is  shown  in  the  Table  III,  Appendix. 

117  It  was  not  repealed  until  1911,  when  the  school  code  was  enacted. 

118  Act  25  April,  1901,  P.L.  pp.  105-106. 

119  Sec.  8,  Act  18  July,  1901,  P.L.  pp.  838-839. 

120  Supt.  of  Public  Instruction,  Report  (1902),  pp.  vi-vii. 
™Idem,p.vii. 


1K  Idem,  p.  vi-vii. 

1M  Idem,  Report  (1903),  p.  viii. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  187 

THE  SUBVENTION  TO  NORMAL  SCHOOLS;  ITS  ABANDONMENT 
FOR  STATE  OWNERSHIP 

When  the  law  authorizing  the  state  normal  schools  was  enacted,  in 
1857,  it  was  believed  that  institutions  for  training  teachers  would  be 
financially  successful  under  private  control.  Within  a  few  years,  how- 
ever, the  legislature  began  to  make  lump-sum  grants  to  such  schools 
as  were  already  in  operation,  and  to  others  as  they  were  opened  and 
recognized  by  the  state  superintendent.  This  policy  was  adhered  to 
until  1913,  when  provision  was  made  by  the  General  Assembly  to  buy 
out  the  stockholders  of  the  various  corporations  controlling  the  thirteen 
institutions  then  in  existence. 

The  princpal  reasons  for  this  change  in  the  state's  policy  were  as 
follows:  In  the  first  place,  the  state,  by  1913,  had  become  the  owner 
of  the  largest  equity  in  the  property  of  the  schools,  but  was  represented 
by  only  one-half  of  the  membership  of  each  of  the  boards  of  trustees. 
Secondly,  the  fact  that  these  schools  were  privately  owned  by  corpora- 
tions ostensibly  organized  for  pecuniary  gain,  made  appropriations  to 
them  objectionable  to  many  people.  Thirdly,  the  fact  that  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  stockholders  practically  controlled  the  boards  of  trus- 
tees placed  many  difficulties  in  the  way  of  developing  the  institutions 
so  as  to  render  the  maximum  service  to  the  state  system  of  common 
schools.  Fourthly,  the  absorption  of  the  normal  schools  was  a  logical 

126  The  following  data  concerning  the  state  aided  high  schools  were  given  by  State 
Superintendent  Schaeffer  in  1910: 

Year                 No.  of  Year                No.  of  No.  of 

Township                                                 Township  Borough 

High  Schools                                           High  Schools  High  Schools 

Aided                                                     Aided  Aided 

1902  66  1907        303 

1903  1241  1908  311  411 

1904  164  1909  341  474 

1905  197  1910  3322  5082 

1906  235 

1  Note  that  this  figure  does  not  agree  with  that  given  by  the  Report  of  1903, 

p.  viii. 
'"Estimated." 

126  Sec.  8,  Act  14  June,  1907,  P.L.  p.  790. 


188 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 


step  in  the  consolidation  of  the  school  system,  which  has  been  a  marked 
feature  of  Pennsylvania's  recent  educational  history.  Finally,  no  satis- 
factory method  of  distributing  the  state  appropriation  had  been  dis- 
covered, and  because  of  political  conditions  none  seemed  likely  to  be 
found  in  the  near  future. 

Among  these  five  reasons  for  discarding  private  ownership  and  opera- 
tion with  state  aid,  the  first  and  last  are  easily  the  most  interesting  to 
the  student  of  public  finance.  The  history  of  the  growth  of  the  state 
appropriation  and  the  failure  of  the  legislature  to  distribute  it  so  as  to 
secure  the  largest  gain  for  the  public  are  illustrative  of  the  difficulties 
in  the  way  of  a  successful  subvention  to  private  institutions. 

The  appropriation  made  directly  to  the  normal  schools  was  usually 
designated,  or  at  least  intended,  to  be  used  to  pay  off  the  existing  in- 
debtedness of  the  corporation,  or  to  aid  it  in  erecting  buildings.128  The 
amount  paid  to  each  school  from  the  date  of  its  organization  to  1898  is 
shown  in  the  following  table: 

THE   AMOUNT  OF  DIRECT   AND   SPECIAL   STATE     APPROPRIATIONS 

THAT  EACH  NORMAL  SCHOOL  RECEIVED  FROM  THE 

DATE  OF  ITS  ORGANIZATION  TO  6  JUNE,  18981 


District 

Location 

Date  of 
recognition 

Amount  received 
from  the  state 

First 

West  Chester 

1871 

$   212,500 

Second 

Millersville 

1859 

262,500 

Third 

Kutztown 

1866 

220,000 

Fourth 

Wast  Stroudsburg 

1893 

72,500 

Fifth 

Mansfield 

1862 

287,500 

Sixth 

Bloomsburg 

1869 

282,500 

Seventh 

Shippensburg 

1873 

264,500 

Eighth 

Lock  Haven 

1877 

314,000 

Ninth 

Indiana 

1875 

235,500 

Tenth 

California 

1874 

214,500 

Eleventh 

Slippery  Rock 

1889 

192,500 

Twelfth 

Edinboro 

1861 

200,000 

Thirteenth 

Clarion 

1887 

192,500 

Total 


$2,951,000 


1  Supt.  of  Public  Instruction,  Report  (1898),  p.  xxiv. 

128  This  appropriation  should  not  be  confused  with  the  appropriation  made  to 
students  in  these  schools. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  189 

When  we  consider  that  in  a  majority  of  cases  these  appropriations  were 
scattered  over  a  period  of  thirty-five  years,  and  that  the  total  for  all 
schools  amounted  to  less  than  $3,000,000,  it  cannot  be  said  that  the  state 
has  been  lavish  in  its  appropriation  policy.  In  fact,  if  the  grants  to 
these  institutions  are  compared  with  the  amount  of  aid  given  to  privately 
owned  charitable  institutions,  they  seem  small  indeed.129 

But  the  normal  schools  also  received  aid  indirectly  in  another  way. 
Students  who  were  willing  to  agree  to  teach  a  certain  length  of  time  in 
the  common  schools  received  from  the  state  treasury  a  substantial  appro- 
priation for  paying  their  tuition  at  any  of  the  recognized  normal  schools. 
No  doubt  many  of  these  students  would  not  have  attended  the  schools 
had  not  the  state  assisted  them.  And  to  the  extent,  therefore,  that 
they  were  induced  to  attend,  the  state  provided  pay  pupils.  Table  III, 
Appendix,  gives  the  combined  payments  for  direct  aid  to  the  schools, 
and  for  students'  tuition.  But  even  this  total  appears  small  when  com- 
pared with  the  payments  to  charitable  institutions. 

By  1878  the  state  had  appropriated  about  $520,000  directly  in  the 
aid  of  the  schools,  and  $208,527  for  the  assistance  of  students.130  Of 
the  former  amount  $320,000  had  been  secured  by  mortgages  recorded 
in  the  name  of  the  state.131  The  amount  appropriated  by  the  state  repre- 
sented a  large  part  of  the  investment  of  the  schools  in  sites  and  permanent 
buildings.132 

The  distribution  of  the  subvention  among  the  various  schools  was 
usually  provided  for  in  the  appropriation  bill.  Sometimes  the  amount 
going  to  each  school  was  named  in  the  bill,  and  not  infrequently  some 
institutions  received  more  than  others;  sometimes  the  bill  appropriated 
a  lump-sum  and  divided  it  equally  among  the  schools;  and  sometimes 
an  ex-omcio  committee  of  state  officers  was  required  to  distribute  the 
subvention  in  any  manner  it  deemed  best.133 

In  1876  the  last  method  was  followed  by  the  legislature  in  making 
the  appropriation.  The  committee,  which  was  composed  of  the  Gover- 
nor, the  Attorney  General,  and  the  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction, 
apportioned  the  money  in  accordance  with  the  principle  that  the  in- 

129  See  Chapter  DC. 

130  Supt.  of  Public  Instruction,  Report  (1878),  p.  xi. 

131  Ibid. 

132  Idem,  (1877),  p.  xi.    The  two  reports  cited  in  this  and  the  preceding  footnote 
make  conflicting  statements  as  to  the  amount  appropriated  by  the  state.    The  differ- 
ence is  over  $25,000. 

133  Idem,  (1877),  p.  xi;  (1882),  pp.  xv-xvi. 


190  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

stitutions  most  heavily  in  debt  should  receive  the  largest  amount  of 
aid.  In  defense  of  this  plan  it  was  urged  that  the  schools  thus  favored 
had  the  finest  equipment  and  were,  as  schools,  in  a  flourishing  condition; 
and  that  immediate  aid  was  necessary  in  some  cases  to  keep  them  from 
falling  into  the  sheriff's  hands  and  being  sold  to  satisfy  obligations  to 
private  creditors.134  The  committee  required  each  school  to  execute 
a  mortgage  in  favor  of  the  state  for  the  amount  it  received.  Six  in- 
stitutions were  also  required  to  use  the  money  received  to  pay  off  their 
indebtedness,  to  raise  by  private  subscription  an  amount  equal  to  one- 
fifth  of  the  state  aid  and  to  use  it  for  the  same  purpose.  Four  other 
schools  were  required  to  agree  to  use  the  amounts  received  to  increase 
their  buildings  and  equipment.135 

This  method  of  distribution  did  not,  however,  give  satisfaction.  In 
1882  Higbee,  who  had  recently  become  state  superintendent,  pointed 
out  that  to  aid  most  liberally  the  most  heavily  indebted  schools  was 
to  put  a  premium  on  lax  management  and  extravagance.136  Without 
doubt,  Higbee's  criticism  was  sound  as  applied  to  the  particular  case. 
But  the  method  of  distribution  that  the  legislature  usually  followed  from 
then  until  1913  was  open  to  the  same  objection  as  well  as  to  others 
quite  as  serious.  During  the  remainder  of  the  period  the  total  appro- 
priation for  direct  assistance  to  normal  schools  was  divided  equally 
among  the  institutions  receiving  it.  Such  a  basis  of  distribution  ignored 
alike  differences  in  the  needs  of  the  various  schools,  efficiency  or  lack  of 
efficiency  in  their  management,  and  differences  in  the  services  they  ren- 
dered the  state. 

It  persisted,  however,  because  equal  distribution  avoided  friction  and 
charges  of  favoritism  in  voting  the  appropriation.  It  was  also  the  result  of 
an  agreement  among  the  trustees  of  the  schools.  In  order  to  pass  the 
appropriation  bill  over  the  opposition  of  those  who  objected  to  using 
public  funds  to  aid  private  concerns,  it  was  necessary  to  secure  harmony 
among  the  representatives  of  the  schools.  This  was  accomplished  by 
making  an  impartial  and  equal  division  of  the  appropriation.137 

The  state  attempted  to  control  the  schools,  partly  by  appointing 
members  of  their  boards  of  trustees,  and  partly  by  giving  the  state 

184  Supt.  of  Public  Instruction,  Report  (1877),  p.  ix. 

136  Idem,  pp.  ix-x. 

™Idem,  Report  (1882),  pp.  xv-xvi. 

137  Statement  of  Mr.  D.  J.  Walker,  principal  of  the  Bloomsburg  Normal  School, 
in  a  paper  read  at  the  Annual  Meeting  of  the  Board  of  Principals  of  the  State  Normal 
Schools,  Proceedings  (1907),  pp.  9-11. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  191 

superintendent  certain  powers  of  supervision  over  them.  By  a  law  of 
1875  it  was  provided  that  six  of  the  eighteen  trustees  of  each  institution 
should  be  selected  by  the  state  superintendent  from  a  list  of  twelve 
nominated  by  the  stockholders.  But  if  the  superintendent  found  fewer 
than  six  of  the  nominees  acceptable,  he  was  authorized,  with  the  con- 
sent of  the  governor,  to  appoint  men  whose  names  were  not  on  the  list. 
Of  course,  the  mere  right  to  appoint  one- third  of  the  board  did  not  give 
the  state  complete  control  in  any  matter  that  came  to  a  vote  with  the 
entire  board  present.  But  this  law  also  required  a  majority  of  three- 
fourths  of  those  present  to  pass  any  motions  upon  which  the  ayes  and 
noes  were  called  for.138 

This  rule  proved  unacceptable  and  at  the  next  session  of  the  legisla- 
ture its  application  was  limited  to  questions  involving  the  sale  or  pur- 
chase or  mortgaging  of  real  estate,  or  the  expenditure  of  the  state  appro- 
propriation  for  a  purpose  not  specifically  designated  by  the  legislature 
or  for  the  surrender  of  the  franchise  of  the  corporation.139  Later  the 
state  sought  to  increase  its  control  by  increasing  its  representation  on 
the  boards  to  one-half  the  membership  of  each.140 

But  even  with  increased  representation,  this  method  of  control 
proved  largely  ineffectual  in  important  matters.  This  was  true  because, 
for  many  years,  the  state's  representatives  were  appointed  from  among 
the  stockholders  of  the  institution,  a  choice  that  was  practically  unavoid- 
able when  a  majority  of  the  prominent  men  in  the  district  were  also 
stockholders.  Later  this  practice  was  discontinued.141 

But  the  principal  defect  in  the  method  was  inherent  in  the  decen- 
tralized district-system  under  which  the  schools  operated.  With  thir- 
teen separate  boards,  each  of  which  was  an  independent  body,  practically 
no  uniformity  was  possible  in  matters  of  financial  policy,  qualifications 
of  teaching  staff,  or  efficiency  of  instruction.  Furthermore,  since  the 
boards  were  local  in  character,  local  politics  and  local  jealousies  often 
dictated  their  policies  and  reduced  the  efficiency  of  the  schools.142 

The  other  method  of  control,  that  of  giving  the  state  superintendent 
the  authority  to  approve  or  reject  the  curricula  of  the  schools  and  to 

"•  Act  12  April,  1875,  P.L.  43. 

139  Act  24  March,  1877,  P.L.  p.  37. 

140  Supt.  of  Public  Instruction,  Report  (1910),  p.  x. 

141  Ibid .    The  superintendent  states  that  when  the  schools  were  established  prac- 
tically every  man  of  means  took  stock.    His  defense  of  the  practice  described  above 
seems  a  little  weak. 

"»  Ibid. 


192  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

name  the  board  of  state  examiners,  which  passed  upon  applicants  for 
graduation,  was  undoubtedly  more  effectual  for  influencing  standards 
of  performance.  But  it  did  not  apply  to  the  financial  policies  of  the 
schools. 

By  1913  the  total  indebtedness  of  the  corporations  controlling  the 
schools  amounted  to  $2, 604,859. 143  Of  this  amount  #1,624,587  was  owed 
to  the  state  and  secured  by  mortgages,  while  the  remainder  was  due 
individual  creditors.144  Now  it  had  been  thought  during  the  years  1874 
to  1887  that  the  appropriations  made  by  the  state  would  enable  the 
schools  to  clear  themselves  of  debt ;  and  during  the  period  the  tendency 
was  for  them  to  pay  off  the  claims  of  private  persons.  But  from  1899 
to  1913,  however,  just  the  reverse  was  true.  In  the  former  year  the 
total  indebtedness  of  all  the  schools  to  individuals  was  about  $351,000.145 
During  the  next  four  years  the  amount  of  such  indebtedness  increased 
nearly  threefold,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  legislature  assisted  directly 
with  appropriations. 

The  cause  of  the  growing  debt  was  apparently  the  need  for  new 
buildings  and  additional  equipment.  The  money  for  these  improvements 
could  not,  apparently,  be  secured  by  increasing  the  stock  of  the  corpora- 
tions; for,  although  the  schools  were  privately  owned,  they  were  not 
profitable  investments  for  the  stock  holders.  In  1899  the  amount 
of  stock  held  by  individuals  as  reported  by  the  state  superintendent  was 
3383,440,  and  in  1913  it  was  #323,928.146 

The  problem  confronting  the  trustees  of  the  schools  and  the  state 
was  how  to  provide  for  progress.  The  state  could  hardly  be  expected 
to  appropriate  more  liberally  as  long  as  it  had  so  little  actual  control 
over  the  conduct  of  the  schools.  Yet,  on  the  other  hand,  it  was  im- 
possible to  enlist  the  support  of  private  capital  in  such  an  unprofitable 
undertaking.  The  solution  reached  by  the  legislature  in  1913  was  to 
buy  out  the  interests  of  the  stockholders  and  to  make  the  schools  state 
institutions. 

The  act  of  that  year  provided  that  #400,000  should  be  placed  at 
the  disposal  of  the  State  Board  of  Education  for  the  purpose  of  pur- 
chasing such  schools  as  they  might  select.  The  board  was  not  permitted, 
however,  to  distribute  to  the  stock  holders  of  any  school  an  amount  in 

143  Supt.  of  Public  Instruction,  Report  (1913),  p.  611. 

144  $668,343  of  the  amount  due  individuals  was  secured  by  mortgages;  the  re- 
remainder  was  in  the  form  of  floating  indebtedness. 

146  Supt.  of  Public  Instruction,  Report  (1899),  pp.  Ixvi-lxvii. 
™  Ibid;  Report  (1913),  p.  611. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  193 

excess  of  that  which  was  originally  paid  for  the  stock.147  The  wording 
of  the  law  is  such  as  to  give  the  board  considerable  latitude  in  dealing 
with  the  stockholders.  They  may  purchase  any  school  at  any  figure 
not  in  excess  of  a  maximum  fixed  by  the  actual  contribution  of  the  stock- 
holders. Furthermore,  they  may  select  the  schools  to  be  taken  over. 
In  1914  the  state  superintendent  reported  that  four  of  the  schools  had 
been  purchased,148  but  no  further  purchases  were  reported  in  his  annual 
reports  in  1915  and  1916. 

Several  points  of  importance  stand  out  hi  the  history  of  the  state 
subvention  to  normal  schools.  The  first  and  most  significant  is  the 
failure  of  the  state  to  secure  adequate  service  from  institutions  over 
which  it  did  not  have  complete  control.  Curricula  and  instruction  were 
not  entirely  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  educational  officers  of  the  state. 
Of  course  this  does  not  mean  that  there  was  no  cooperation  between 
the  state  officials  and  the  teaching  force  of  the  schools.  The  expressed 
or  implied  statements  of  the  state  superintendents  indicate  that  the  prin- 
cipals and  teachers  of  the  schools  were  usually  willing  to  cooperate. 
But  at  times  disagreements  arose.  Moreover,  uniformity  of  standards 
could  not  be  entirely  brought  about. 

In  the  second  place,  the  financial  management  of  the  schools  seems 
to  have  been  marked  by  improvidence  and  lack  of  foresight.  Debts 
were  increased  when  there  was  little  prospect  of  making  payment  unless 
the  state  assumed  the  burden.  In  later  years  the  increased  demands 
upon  the  schools  made  extensions  necessary,  and,  since  additional  aid 
from  the  stockholders  was  not  forthcoming,  it  was  necessary  to  borrow. 
Finally,  for  a  variety  of  reasons,  no  equitable  or  rational  scheme  of  dis- 
tributing the  state  aid  was  discovered. 

On  the  whole,  we  may  say  that  the  method  of  encouraging  privately 
owned  schools  by  grants  from  the  state  treasury  was  successful  in  estab- 
lishing these  schools  at  a  time  when  they  were  badly  needed.  That  it 
was  as  economical  as  direct  state  operation  during  the  early  period  may 
be  conceded.  But  on  the  other  hand,  it  seems  clear  that  at  the  present 
time  no  excuse  exists  for  prolonging  the  operation  of  the  schools  under 
private  ownership. 

Training  schools  for  teachers  have,  in  recent  years,  been  provided 
as  a  part  of  the  school  system  of  several  Pennsylvania  cities.  Philadel- 
phia has  for  many  years  provided  special  institutions  for  that  purpose. 
The  latter  have  received  aid  from  the  state,  and  whenever  the  amounts 

147  Act  25  July,  1913,  P.L.  p.  1294.  The  governor  reduced  this  amount  to  $100,000 . 

148  Report  (1914),  p.  3. 


194  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

were  separately  recorded  by  the  Auditor  General  they  have  been  included 
in  the  total  payments  for  normal  schools  in  Table  III,  Appendix. 

The  subvention  for  the  assistance  of  students  in  the  normal  schools 
who  agreed  to  teach  for  a  time  in  the  common  schools  continued  through- 
out the  period  1874  to  1916.  Practically  no  changes  were  made  in  the 
subvention  until  1901,  when  the  state  agreed  to  pay  the  entire  tuition 
of  such  students.  Previous  to  that  date  they  were  assisted  in  two  ways. 
First,  a  certain  amount  per  week  for  each  student  was  paid  to  the  normal 
schools  and  the  amount  was  then  deducted  from  the  tuition  charged. 
Second,  when  a  student  had  successfully  completed  the  course  and  had 
been  passed  by  the  state  board  of  examiners  he  received  a  grant  of  $50. 

Certain  objections  to  this  grant  are  obvious.  Although  the  student 
who  received  assistance  by  the  payment  of  his  tuition  was  required  to 
agree  to  teach,  it  is  doubtful  whether  the  state  ever  undertook  to  enforce 
the  agreement,  for  no  record  of  any  attempt  to  compel  performance  on 
the  part  of  students  who  had  broken  the  agreement  has  been  discovered. 
Some  of  the  students  receiving  assistance  must,  undoubtedly,  have  failed 
to  secure  positions  and  thus  have  been  unable  to  carry  out  their  part  of 
the  contract.  The  only  cause  for  complaint  against  the  system  in  case 
of  failure  of  the  student  to  teach  was  the  fact  that  other  students  who 
could  not  or  would  not  sign  such  agreement  received  no  assistance. 

The  grant  of  $50  on  graduation  was  usually  a  very  welcome  windfall 
for  the  impecunious  student  who  had  gone  into  debt  to  complete  his  edu- 
cation. But  it  is  difficult  to  see  why  it  should  have  been  made.  In 
some  respects  its  effects  were  actually  detrimental  to  the  standards  of  the 
schools.  The  matter  was  fully  explained  by  the  state  superintendent  in 
1901.  "  It  [the  law  of  1901]  forever  abolishes  the  payment  of  fifty  dollars 
as  a  fee  on  graduation,  and  removes  the  pressure  on  the  State  Board  of 
Examiners  to  graduate  students  who  spent  the  (sic)  last  cent  in  getting 
an  education  and  who  were  counting  on  the  graduation  fee  for  aid  in 
payment  of  their  tuition.  "149  The  act  of  1901  provided  that  the  state 
should  pay  $1.50  per  week  for  the  tuition  of  each  student  who  should  agree 
to  teach  two  years  in  the  common  school  of  Pennsylvania.150 

Another  interesting  and  significant  point  in  the  history  of  the  state 
normal  schools  was  the  controversy  over  the  interpretation  of  the  re- 
strictive clauses  of  the  state  constitution.  Section  2  of  Article  X  reads, 
"  No  money  raised  for  the  support  of  the  public  schools  of  this  Common- 
wealth shall  be  appropriated  to  or  used  for  the  support  of  any  sectarian 

"•Report  (1901),  p.  iv. 

180  Sec.  8,  Act  18  July,  1901,  P.L.  p.  839. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  195 

school. "  Section  18  of  Article  III  provides,  "No  appropriations,  except 
for  pensions  or  gratuities  for  military  services,  shall  be  made  for  chari- 
table, educational,  or  benevolent  purposes  to  any  person  or  community, 
nor  to  any  denominational  or  sectarian  institution,  corporation  or 
association. " 

Previous  to  the  adoption  of  the  constitution  of  1873  Lincoln  Uni- 
versity, an  institution  for  members  of  the  colored  race,  had  received  state 
aid  as  a  normal  school.  In  1874  the  General  Assembly  passed  a  law  to 
recognize  it  as  an  additional  state  normal  school,151  and  made  an  appro- 
priation for  its  support. 

In  addition  to  its  other  departments  Lincoln  University  maintained 
a  theological  school,  in  which  the  Presbyterian  church  had  been  given  a 
general  veto  power  over  the  election  of  instructors.152  The  state  superin- 
tendent, upon  whom  fell  the  duty  of  distributing  the  normal  school 
appropriation,  being  in  doubt  as  to  the  constitutionality  of  the  act  mak- 
ing an  appropriation  to  the  school,  referred  the  question  to  the  Attorney 
General.  That  officer  advised  him  that,  since  the  General  Assembly  of 
the  Presbyterian  church  was  given  power  over  one  department  of  the 
university,  it  thereby  became  a  sectarian  institution.153  It  followed  that 
any  appropriation  by  the  legislature  for  its  support  was  in  violation  of 
Section  18  of  Article  III  of  the  state  constitution.154  The  Attorney 
General  considered  the  question  whether  the  separation  of  the  university 
into  departments  made  a  material  difference.  He  thought  that  it  did 
not,  since  one  board  of  trustees  and  one  charter  governed  all  depart- 
ments. Moreover,  he  decided  that  the  appointment  of  trustees  from 
different  denominations  was  an  immaterial  condition.155 

Accordingly,  the  state  superintendent  refused  to  pay  the  appropria- 
tion and  the  legislature  apparently  agreed,  for  thereafter  no  subvention 
was  made  to  the  school.  This  case  is  significant  because  it  shows  a  ten- 
dency in  two  departments  of  the  state  administration  to  construe  strictly 
those  sections  of  the  constitution  prohibiting  appropriations  to  sectarian 
institutions. 

THE  SUBVENTIONS  FOR  HIGHER  EDUCATION 

The  annual  subvention  to  colleges,  which  had  been  abandoned  when 
financial  disaster  overtook  the  state,  in  1844,156  has  never  been  revived. 

1S1  Act  11  May,  1874  P.L.  p.  134. 

U2Supt.  of  Common  Schools,  Report  (1874),  p.  Ixii. 

™  Idem,  pp.  Ixi-lxii. 

154  Idem,  p.  Ixii. 

» Idem,  p.  Ixi. 

166  See  fourth  section  of  Chapter  IV. 


196  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

In  recent  years,  however,  large  amounts  have  been  appropriated,  by 
special  enactments,  to  assist  colleges  and  universities.  With  the  excep- 
tion of  occasional  grants  to  the  State  College  and  the  Philadelphia  Poly- 
clinic,  the  large  grants  of  the  present  time  date  from  1887.  Since  that 
year  the  former  institution  has  received  a  substantial  appropriation 
annually.  As  Table  III,  Appendix,  shows,  the  amount  of  the  subven- 
tion to  colleges  and  academies  has  fluctuated  greatly.  When  the  state 
treasury  was  in  danger  of  a  deficit  during  the  years  1899  to  1901,  the  ap- 
propriations were  reduced,  in  part  by  the  legislature,  and  in  part  by 
the  governor's  veto. 

No  policy  with  respect  to  these  grants  to  colleges  has  as  yet  been 
developed,  except  in  the  case  of  the  State  College.  This  institution  is 
now  governed  by  a  board  of  trustees  composed  in  part  of  certain  state 
officers  who  serve  ex-officio,  in  part  of  members  representing  the  alumni 
association,  and,  in  part,  of  the  representatives  of  agricultural  and  kindred 
societies.  The  college  is  a  land-grant  school  and  in  most  respects  is 
regarded  as  a  state  institution.  It  now  receives  the  major  part  of  its 
revenue  from  the  state  and  from  the  federal  government. 

Although  the  state  has  appropriated  liberally  toward  the  support  of 
both  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  and  the  University  of  Pittsburg, 
it  has  no  voice  in  their  management.  They  receive  aid  both  for  main- 
tenance and  for  building  purposes. 

The  principal  defect  of  the  subventions  to  these  two  universities  is 
that  they  are  lacking  in  stability  and  system.  The  state  is  not  bound  to 
aid  either  institution  and  the  amount  that  each  receives  is  affected  by  all 
the  uncertain  conditions  surrounding  the  passage  of  an  extraordinary 
appropriation  bill.  It  has  also  been  urged  that  if  the  state  gives  the 
public  funds  to  support  these  colleges,  it  should  have  a  voice  in  their 
management.  Assuming,  however,  that  the  money  appropriated  for 
their  support  would  not  be  of  more  benefit  if  used  for  elementary  or 
secondary  education,  or  for  other  services,  the  grants  cannot  be  seriously 
criticised. 

MISCELLANEOUS  SUBVENTIONS  FOR  EDUCATION;  THE  STATE 
SCHOOL  FUND 

In  addition  to  the  important  subventions  to  common  and  normal 
schools  and  to  colleges,  the  state  now  distributes  a  large  amount  annually 
to  learned  societies  and  organizations  that  contribute  to  the  education 
of  the  public  in  a  less  formal  way.  These  organizations,  which  are  very 
diverse  in  character,  include  such  concerns  as  the  Pennsylvania  State 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  197 

Historical  Society  and  the  Museum  and  School  of  Industrial  Art.  Appro- 
priations to  these  organizations  are  not  regarded  as  permanent.  They 
vary  from  biennium  to  biennium,  and  at  times  are  omitted  entirely  for 
a  period  of  years.  The  total  amount  appropriated  to  all  the  institutions 
of  this  class  at  any  session  of  the  legislature  is  usually  in  excess  of  $50,000. 

Assuming  that  these  organizations  are,  in  a  majority  of  cases,  entirely 
commendable  and  that  the  purposes  of  their  existence  are  worthy  ones, 
it  does  not  follow  that  the  state  should  subsidize  them.  They  are  usually 
local  in  scope,  and  their  activities,  although  useful  and  praiseworthy, 
are  not  of  the  nature  of  public  services.  Or,  to  put  it  in  another  way,  no 
one  would  suggest  that  the  state  should  provide  directly  the  services 
they  render,  and  since  they  stand  in  such  a  vulnerable  position,  the 
organizations  are  subjected  at  times  to  severe  criticism.157  A  very  real 
objection  to  appropriations  in  their  behalf  is  the  partiality  of  the  legisla- 
ture. If  one  organization  receives  aid  why  not  others?  Lack  of  system, 
lack  of  state  control,  and  lack  of  public  purpose  all  condemn  these  grants. 

The  appropriations  to  a  number  of  semi-private  industrial  and  train- 
ing schools  are  as  unsystematic  as  those  to  the  organizations  just 
described.  But  the  purpose  served  by  these  schools,  which  provide 
industrial  training  for  neglected  children,  is  such  as  to  warrant  state  aid. 
Control  by  the  state  is,  however,  wanting  and  there  is  no  assurance  that 
the  public  funds  are  always  efficiently  used.158 

One  of  the  defects  of  the  existing  school  system  noted  by  the  state 
superintendent  in  1874,  was  the  unsystematic  and  inequitable  scale  of 
salaries  paid  the  county  superintendents.  A  number  of  laws  were  enacted 
between  1875  and  1911  with  a  view  to  requiring  the  localities  to  pay  these 
officers  salaries  commensurate  with  the  responsibilities  they  incurred 
and  the  work  they  performed.  All  these  laws  were  replaced  by  the 
School  Code  of  1911.  That  act  as  amended  in  1917  requires  a  minimum 
salary  of  $2,000  for  each  superintendent,  and  the  maximum  of  $2,500, 
which  the  code  establishes,  may,  under  certain  conditions,  be  increased.159 

A  convention  of  the  school  directors  of  the  districts  within  the  county 
elects  the  superintendent.  But  a  protest  against  the  election  may  be 
made  by  the  minority.  If  the  majority  of  each  of  the  boards  of  directors 
in  one-fifth  of  the  districts  makes  the  protest,  an  appeal  may  be  carried 

157  See  e.g.,  a  statement  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  17  May,  1911,  Legislative 
Record,  p.  2722,  col.  1. 

168  See  the  list  of  Training  Schools  receiving  state  aid,  Aud.  Gen.  Report  (1913), 
p.  567. 

169  Sec.  1121,  Act  18  May,  1911,  P.L.  p.  365,  Act6  July,  1917,  P.L.  p.  737. 


198  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

to  the  state  superintendent.  If  he  finds  the  objection  and  appeal  based 
upon  facts  that,  in  his  judgment,  justify  such  action,  he  may  throw  out 
the  election  and  declare  the  office  vacant  and  may  then  make  an  appoint- 
ment to  fill  the  vacancy.160  This  provision  is  a  wise  one  for  avoiding 
local  quarrels,  and  undoubtedly  constitutes  a  real  check  upon  the  locali- 
ties. But  it  is  obvious  that  in  a  majority  of  counties  the  excellence  of  the 
man  selected  still  depends  on  the  boards  of  directors.  The  state  super- 
tendent  may,  under  the  recent  laws,  as  under  those  of  earlier  years, 
remove  any  county  superintendent  for  "  neglect  of  duty,  incompetency, 

immorality,  intemperance "  violation  of  the  school  law  or  other 

improper  conduct.  But  this  is  a  potential  rather  than  an  actual  check. 

The  salary  actually  paid  any  given  superintendent,  is  automatically 
determined  and  depends  upon  the  number  of  schools  over  which  he  has 
jurisdiction.  If,  however,  the  number  of  schools  should  be  large  enough 
to  indicate  a  salary  in  excess  of  $2,500,  the  convention  of  directors  must 
authorize  it  before  it  can  actually  be  paid. 

In  the  more  important  counties  assistant  superintendents  are  also 
provided.  They  are  appointed  by  the  superintendent  of  the  county 
and  confirmed  by  the  officers  of  the  County  School  Directors  Association, 
an  organization  established  by  the  code  of  19 II.161  The  state  pays,  by 
special  appropriation,  the  salaries  of  the  assistants  and  of  the  county 
superintendents.  But  if  a  county,  through  the  school  directors,  agrees 
to  pay  its  superintendent  more  than  $2,500,  it  must  bear  the  excess  which 
is  deducted  from  its  quota  of  the  state  subvention. 

The  legislation  relative  to  the  office  of  county  superintendent  shows 
the  tendency  toward  centralization  of  the  control  of  the  school  system. 
Through  many  roundabout  processes  and  by  offering  bribes  to  the  locali- 
ties for  their  submission,  the  legislature  is  slowly  bringing  the  common 
schools  more  and  more  under  the  control  of  the  state  superintendent  and 
the  newly  created  State  Board  of  Education.162 

180  Sec.  1112,  Act  18  May,  1911,  P.L.  p.  363-364. 

181  Sec.  1127,  idem,  PJLp.367. 

182  This  board  was  created  by  the  Act  of  18  May,  1911.    It  is  composed  of  the 
State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction,  ex-officio,  and  six  members  appointed 
by  the  governor  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  senate.    Three  of  the  six  must  be 
successful  educators  of  high  standing,  connected  with  the  public  school  system  of  the 
commonwealth.    All  the  members  serve  without  salary.    The  board  is  authorized 
to  inspect  and  require  reports  from  educational  institutions  wholly  or  partly  supported 
by  the  state  but  not  subject  to  public  authorities.    They  are  also  required  to  encourage 
vocational  training  and  to  equalize  the  educational  advantages  of  the  different  parts 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  199 

After  the  disappearance  of  the  first  school  fund,  during  the  years 
1840  to  1844,  Pennsylvania  made,  until  recently,  no  attempt  to  pro- 
vide a  permanent  endowment  for  her  common  schools.  In  1911, 
however,  the  legislature  created  a  new  fund.  The  proceeds  of  all  water 
powers  and  water  rights  and  of  all  real  estate  belonging  to  the  common- 
wealth, together  with  all  escheated  estates  and  eighty  per  cent  of  the 
proceeds  of  the  forest  reservations  make  up  the  fund.  All  gifts  and 
bequests  from  private  individuals  and  moneys  specially  appropriated 
by  the  legislature  are  also  to  be  included.163 

The  amounts  accruing  to  the  fund  are  to  be  deposited  hi  the  state 
depositories  (banks),  but  the  State  Board  of  Education  is  required  to 
invest  the  accumulations  promptly.  Only  the  bonds  of  school  districts 
or  good  municipal  bonds  may  be  utilized  as  investments  by  the  board.164 
The  board  is  also  authorized  to  use  as  much  of  the  income  from  the  fund 
as  it  deems  wise  toward  equalizing  educational  advantages  of  the  dif- 
ferent parts  of  the  commonwealth,  and  also  to  use  such  part  of  the  same 
as  it  deems  wise  to  further  and  promote  education  in  the  conservation  of 
natural  resources,  and  education  in  forestry,  agriculture  and  other  indus- 
trial pursuits,  in  the  public  schools  of  the  Commonwealth.165 

In  view  of  the  limited  sources  from  which  the  fund  is  to  be  derived, 
one  would  say  that  the  objects  for  which  it  may  be  expended  are  rather 
numerous.  As  yet  the  fund  is  unimportant  and  it  seems  unlikely  that 
it  will  become  a  large  factor  in  the  finances  of  the  school  system  hi 
the  near  future.166 

In  1913  a  new  subvention  was  created  for  the  purpose  of  encouraging 
vocational  education  hi  the  public  schools.  Any  school  district  is  autho- 
rized to  establish  a  separate  school  or  department  in  which  industrial 
education,  household  arts,  or  agriculture  shall  be  taught  by  teachers 
approved  by  the  State  Board  of  Education.  The  board  must  also 
approve  the  courses  of  study,  the  location,  equipment  and  methods  of 
instructions  of  each  school.167 

of  the  commonwealth,  by  means  of  funds  appropriated  for  that  purpose.    Finally 
sanitary  inspection  of  the  schools  is  in  their  charge. 

163  Sec.  2701,  Act  18  May,  1911,  P.L.  p.  431. 

1M  Sec.  2703,  Idem,  p.  432. 

166  Sec.  2704,  Act  18  May,  1911,  P.L.  p.  432. 

169  In  1915  the  Supt.  of  Public  Instruction  stated  that  the  State  school  fund  amoun- 
ted to  over  $175,000,  Report  (1915),  p.  11. 

167  Act  1  May,  1913,  P.L.  p.  138. 


200  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

The  amount  of  state  aid  paid  approved  schools  or  departments  de- 
pends upon  the  cost  of  operation.  The  law  provides  that  the  state  shall 
pay  "  an  amount  equal  to  two-thirds  the  sum  which  has  been  expended 
during  the  previous  year  by  such  school  district,  or  districts"  for  the 
maintenance  of  vocational  departments.  But  the  maximum  amount 
that  any  district  may  receive  is  limited  to  $5,000.168 

From  the  point  of  view  of  public  finance  the  method  of  distributing 
this  subvention  is  objectionable.  To  give  a  district  two-thirds  of  the 
cost  of  the  vocational  departments  without  direct  reference  to  the  number 
of  pupils  in  the  school,  or  the  quality  of  the  instruction,  is  not  in  accord- 
ance with  sound  principles  of  public  expenditure.  On  the  other  hand, 
of  course,  the  state  board  has  the  power  to  approve  or  disapprove  of  the 
management  of  schools  that  receive  state  aid.  It  remains  to  be  seen  how 
effective  this  supervision  will  be.  In  1913  the  legislature  appropriated 
#232,000  for  the  assistance  of  the  vocational  departments,169  and  during 
the  school  year  1913-14,  twenty-one  districts  qualified  for  state  aid.170 
But  the  scheme  has  been  in  operation  too  short  a  time  to  permit  of  any 
judgment  as  to  its  success. 

SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSIONS:  SUBVENTIONS  FOR  EDUCATION 
A  survey  of  the  history  of  state  subventions  for  education  from  1874 
to  1915  shows,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  state  has  made  no  attempt 
to  systematize  the  grants.  No  consideration  has  ever  been  given,  as 
far  as  can  be  discovered,  to  the  relation  of  the  various  subsidized  ser- 
vices to  each  other.  But  the  causes  of  this  neglect  are  to  be  found  in  the 
educational  "system"  as  well  as  in  the  appropriation  policy  of  the  legis- 
lature. As  long  as  the  state  does  not  itself  administer,  or  closely  control 
a  complete  system  of  schools  beginning  with  the  elementary  common 
school  and  culminating  in  a  state  university,  and  at  the  same  time  em- 
bracing vocational  schools  and  training  schools  for  teachers,  it  will  be 
difficult  to  systematize  the  grants  for  education.  In  1916  the  common 
schools,  the  high  schools,  the  vocational  schools171  and  some  of  the  normal 
schools  were  under  the  complete  control  of  the  public  authorities.  The 
majority  of  the  normal  schools  and  the  State  College  are,  however,  only 
partially  controlled,  while  the  universities  that  receive  large  appropria- 

168  Act  1  May,  1913,  P.L.  p.  138. 

189  Act  25  July,  1913,  P.L.  p.  1249.  The  governor  reduced  this  amount  to 
$135,000. 

170  Supt.  of  Public  Instruction,  Report  (1914),  p.  7. 

171  The  term  is  used  in  its  widest  sense. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  201 

tions  are  entirely  free  from  state  supervision,  except  insofar  as  their 
charters  are  concerned.  Under  such  conditions  it  is  obviously  impossible 
for  the  state  to  make  its  appropriations  for  education  according  to  a  sys- 
tematic, long-time  policy. 

The  lack  of  system  in  the  appropriations  is,  however,  found  in  the 
subventions  to  that  part  of  the  school  system  which  is  completely  under 
state  and  local  control,  namely  the  common  public  schools.  The  history 
of  the  grant  to  common  schools  shows  that  it  has  sometimes  been  used  to 
stimulate  local  interest,  sometimes  to  equalize  the  burdens  of  state  and 
local  taxation,  sometimes  to  secure  the  extension  of  the  school  term, 
sometimes  to  raise  teachers'  wages,  and  lately  to  encourage  the  adoption 
of  vocational  training  departments.  But,  as  has  been  pointed  out  by 
State  Superintendent  Schaeffer,172  the  amount  of  the  subvention  has 
not,  in  recent  years,  kept  pace  with  the  growing  needs  of  the  schools.173 
Local  taxation  has  supplied  the  lack,  but  there  are  indications  that  in 
the  rural  districts  the  limit  has  about  been  reached  in  this  direction, 
either  because  of  the  growing  burden  of  taxation  or  because  of  the  locali- 
ties refusal  to  support  the  schools  adequately. 

The  conclusion  must  not  be  drawn,  however,  that  the  subvention 
has  accomplished  nothing,  in  recent  years,  except  the  relief  of  the  local 
tax  payers.  Much  good  has  been  done  directly  by  causing  better  salaries 
to  be  paid  and  by  aiding  financially  weak  districts.  Moreover,  the  fact  that 
the  state  contributes  a  portion  of  the  revenue  for  the  support  of  the 
schools  has  enabled  it  not  only  to  make  and  to  enforce  standards  of 
efficiency,  but  also  to  intervene  informally,  through  the  office  of  the 
state  superintendent,  for  the  betterment  of  the  schools.  The  creation 
of  the  State  Board  of  Education  and  the  establishment  of  a  state  school 
fund  may  also  be  regarded  as  additional  measures  for  the  utilization  of 
central  control  for  the  purpose  of  raising  the  standard  of  efficiency  of 
the  district  schools.  But  much  remains  to  be  done  before  educational 
opportunities  in  all  the  districts  shall  be  equal  to  a  reasonalbe  minimum. 
The  subvention  for  education  cannot,  therefore,  be  said  to  have  been 
entirely  successful  in  acheiving  the  principal  purpose  for  which  it  exists 
at  the  present  time. 

The  lack  of  complete  success  is  due,  in  part,  to  the  failure  of  the 
legislature  to  contrive  a  method  of  distributing  the  grant  which  shall 
not  only  aid  the  weaker  districts  to  maintain  good  schools,  but  which 

172  Report  (1915),  pp.  11-12. 

173  See  table  on  p.  159,  supra. 


202  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

shall  also  either  encourage  or  coerce  those  localities  which  suffer  only 
from  indifference.  Failure  to  provide  sanitary  and  comfortable  buildings, 
or  to  keep  the  schools  in  session  for  the  major  portion  of  the  year,  or  to 
employ  good  teachers  is  due,  in  some  districts,  to  unwillingness  to  pay 
as  heavy  taxes  as  a  majority  of  the  districts  are  accustomed  to  levy. 
Against  these  laggards  the  threat  of  withholding  the  subvention  is  only 
partially  successful,  since  the  required  standards  of  performance  cannot, 
at  the  present  time,  be  raised  high  enough.  If  they  were  many  of  the 
poorer  mountain  districts  would  not  be  able  to  comply.  The  remedy 
for  these  conditions  would  include  two  things.  (1)  Very  much  more 
exacting  requirements  for  districts  participating  in  the  subvention, 
and  (2)  an  appropriation  placed  at  the  disposal  of  an  administrative 
board  for  the  assistance  of  the  districts  that  cannot  provide  good  schools 
even  by  levying  heavy  taxes. 

The  subvention  to  normal  schools  has  served  its  purpose  and  is  on 
the  way  to  extinction.  At  a  time  when  such  schools  were  more  or  less 
of  an  experiment,  and  when  the  state  was  unable  to  maintain  teachers' 
training  schools,  the  subvention  aided  in  establishing  a  much  needed 
service.  But  public  opinion  and  the  condition  of  the  treasury  would 
now  permit  state  control  and  operation  of  all  the  normal  schools,  and 
it  is  generally  admitted  that  better  results  can  be  obtained  in  state 
institutions. 

The  subvention  to  institutions  of  collegiate  or  university  standing 
is  the  least  systematic  of  all  the  important  grants  for  education.  The 
amounts  appropriated  vary  greatly  from  year  to  year  and  seem  to  be 
based  only  upon  legislative  caprice  and  not  upon  the  amount  of  service 
rendered  the  people  of  the  state  nor  upon  the  excellence  of  that  service. 
Moreover  the  appropriation  is  made  to  private  corporations  over  which 
the  state  has  no  definite  supervision  or  control.  This  is  in  violation  of 
the  principles  of  public  administration  and  of  public  finance. 

Although  all  the  subventions  for  education  have  accomplished  much 
good  their  usefulness  might  be  greatly  increased  by  the  adoption  of  an 
educational  budget  policy.  Such  a  policy  presupposes  a  state  budget, 
since  the  amount  that  the  state  should  spend  for  education,  in  comparison 
with  other  services,  cannot  be  scientifically  determined  until  some  kind 
of  budgetary  arrangements  are  adopted.  The  educational  budget 
should  be  in  charge  of  an  administrative  board,  such  as  a  board  of  edu- 
cation, which  would  apportion  the  disposable  funds  to  those  institutions 
which  seemed  most  useful  and  most  in  need  of  state  aid.  Under  such 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  203 

arrangements  the  state  educational  institutions  might  be  so  developed 
that  they  would  complement  each  other.  Moreover,  since  the  board 
could  be  allowed  considerable  discretion  in  distributing  the  subvention 
to  common  schools,  it  would  be  possible  to  assist  liberally  the  weaker  but 
active  districts  in  which  the  lack  of  good  schools  is  due  to  a  small  amount 
of  taxable  wealth.  On  the  other  hand,  the  subvention  might  be  either 
withheld  from  or  greatly  reduced  to  those  districts  which  declined  to 
impose  adequate  taxes. 

Moreover,  such  a  board  would  be  able  to  advise  the  legislature  in- 
telligently in  regard  to  the  proportion  of  the  funds  available  for  education 
that  should  be  expended  for  the  support  of  high  schools  and  of  vocational 
training  departments.  It  could  also  determine  the  amount  that  should 
be  used  to  train  teachers  in  normal  schools. 

In  short,  the  subvention  for  education  might  be  made  much  more 
effective  for  the  development  of  a  well  rounded  state  educational  sys- 
tem and  for  the  equalization  of  educational  opportunities  throughout 
the  state  if  the  control  of  the  schools  were  more  completely  centralized 
and  if  supervision  and  the  apportionment  of  the  subvention  were  placed 
in  the  hands  of  educational  experts.  This  would,  however,  mean  a 
voluntary  surrender  of  a  large  amount  of  power  by  the  legislature  and 
by  the  local  school  authorities  and  in  both  cases  the  transfer  of  authority 
would  be  exceedingly  difficult  to  accomplish.  It  is,  therefore,  very  doubt- 
ful if  it  could  be  brought  about  at  the  present  time. 


CHAPTER  VIII 
MINOR  GRANTS  TO  LOCAL  AUTHORITIES 

SUBVENTIONS  FOR  THE  ENCOURAGEMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE  AND  FOR 
THE  PROTECTION  OF  LIFE  AND  PROPERTY 

In  addition  to  the  principal  subventions  for  the  advancement  of  edu- 
cation the  state  of  Pennsylvania  aids  local  governments  in  maintaining 
a  number  of  miscellaneous  services.  These  are  by  no  means  so  important 
either  financially  or  in  their  social  effects  as  are  the  subventions  for  edu- 
cation. Like  the  subventions  for  education,  however,  those  of  the 
miscellaneous  group  are  made  chiefly  to  local  governmental  agencies. 
The  purposes  for  which  they  are  granted  include  highway  construction 
and  maintenance,  waterfront  improvements,  protection  against  forest 
fires,  the  conduct  of  primary  elections,  the  destruction  of  noxious  animals, 
and  the  encouragement  of  agriculture.  Only  the  last  is  granted  to 
private  organizations.  With  the  exception  of  the  grant  in  aid  to  counties 
and  townships  for  highway  construction  and  maintenance,  these  sub- 
ventions present  no  striking  points  of  difference  from  those  already 
discussed  and,  therefore,  may  be  briefly  dealt  with.  The  highway  grant, 
which  is,  on  the  other  hand,  very  important,  will  receive  more  elaborate 
treatment. 

The  grant  to  encourage  agriculture  is  of  very  early  origin  but  only 
in  recent  years  has  it  assumed  more  than  negligible  importance  as  a 
financial  matter.  Throughout  the  period  1874-1916  the  legislature 
allowed  the  state  agricultural  society  a  small  amount  annually  to  defray 
the  cost  of  publishing  its  proceedings.1  In  1907,  however,  the  legislature 
provided  for  subsidies  to  pay  premiums  offered  by  agricultural  associations 
at  agricultural  exhibitions  and  county  fairs.2  In  1914  this  new  form 
of  public  generosity  cost  the  state  treasury  $58,409.3 

Another  subvention  of  a  similar  sort  is  the  bounty  paid  by  the  state 
for  the  destruction  of  dangerous  and  harmful  wild  animals.  This  sub- 
vention came  into  existence  under  an  act  of  1907  .4  Previous  to  that  year 
state  laws  had  been  enacted  requiring  counties  to  pay  bounties  to  persons 
who  presented  evidence  of  having  killed  certain  wild  animals,  such  as 


amount  was  usually  between  two  thousand  and  three  thousand  dollars 
annually.     See  Reports  of  Auditors  General  for  years  1874-1916. 
2  Act  13  June,  1907,  P.L.  pp.  702-703. 
3Aud.  Gen.  Report  (1914),  p.  677. 
«  Act  10  April,  1907,  P.L.  pp.  60-61. 

204 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  205 

wolves  and  wildcats.  The  procedure  in  paying  this  subvention  is  very 
simple.  The  legislature  has  named  the  animals  for  whose  destruction  a 
bounty  is  to  be  paid  and  has  fixed  the  amount  of  the  bounty  for  each 
animal  killed.  Certain  local  officers  are  required  to  verify  the  statements 
of  those  claiming  the  bounty  and  the  county  treasurer  is  required  to 
pay  the  amounts  prescribed.  Twice  a  year  the  county  commissioners 
report  these  disbursements  to  the  Auditor  General  who  draws  a  warrant 
for  the  amount  indicated  by  the  county  treasurers'  accounts.  The 
former  officer  may,  of  course,  refuse  to  issue  the  warrant  if  the  reports, 
accounts,  etc.,  are  not  in  proper  form.  In  1914  the  payments  from  the 
state  treasury  for  this  purpose  amounted  to  $17, 36 1.5 

The  subvention  to  the  localities  for  the  protection  against  forest 
fires  was  first  paid  in  1899.  Since  that  date  the  subvention  has  been 
continuous,  although  the  acts  under  which  it  is  paid  have  been  changed 
from  time  to  time.  The  law  of  1907,  under  which  it  is  now  paid,  makes 
the  constables  of  townships  and  of  boroughs  responsible  for  the  extin- 
guishment of  forest  fires.6  These  fire  wardens  and  such  assistants  as 
they  may  employ  are  paid  by  the  counties.  The  state  then  reimburses 
the  local  governments  to  the  extent  of  two-thirds  of  the  total  payments. 
The  duties  of  fire  wardens  are  prescribed  by  the  legislature  and  punish- 
ment is  provided  for  those  who  neglect  their  duties  There  is  practically 
no  control  by  the  state  over  the  financial  operations  of  the  county  with 
respect  to  these  payments  which  amounted  in  1914  to  $18, 166. 7 

Another  type  of  payment  to  assist  the  local  governments  is  the  appro- 
priation for  the  expenses  of  holding  uniform  primary  elections.  This 
payment  is  scarcely  in  the  nature  of  a  grant  since  the  local  officers  act 
as  agents  of  the  state.  When  the  bill  which  provided  for  payment  by 
the  state  was  before  the  senate,  in  1906,  it  was  stated  in  debate  that 
a  "good  many"  members  of  the  House  of  Representatives  objected  to 
the  expense  that  the  uniform  primary  law  would  impose  upon  the  coun- 
ties. Hence  the  provision  for  assumption  of  the  cost  by  the  central 
government.8  In  1914  the  payments  for  this  service  amounted  to 
$333,100.9 

5  Aud.  Gen.  Report  (1914),  p.  61. 

6  Act  25  April,  1907,  P.L.  pp.  101-103. 

7  Aud.  Gen.  Report  (1914),  p.  675. 

8  See  Legislative  Record  (1906),  pp.  468,  605. 

9  Aud.  Gen.  Report  (1914),  pp.  709-710. 


206  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

THE  SUBVENTION  FOR  THE  CONSTRUCTION  AND 
MAINTENANCE  OF  HIGHWAYS 

After  the  failure  of  the  internal  improvement  system  Pennsylvania 
ceased  to  build  or  to  assist  in  building  roads.  There  were  occasional 
exceptions  to  this  statement,  as  for  instance  when  a  number  of  bridges 
over  important  rivers  had  been  destroyed.  Under  such  circumstances 
the  state  sometimes  aided  the  counties  in  replacing  the  structures.  But 
no  systematic  assistance  was  rendered  the  local  communities  until  1903, 
when  an  act  was  passed  providing  for  state  and  local  co-operation  in 
the  construction  and  maintenance  of  permanent  improved  highways. 

The  movement  for  better  roads  had,  however,  developed  more  than 
ten  years  before  that  date.  The  agitation  crystallized  in  1891  into  a 
bill  for  the  complete  reorganization  of  the  method  of  administering  and 
paying  for  the  construction  of  highways.10  When  this  bill,  which  was 
drawn  by  a  bi-partisan  committee  including  members  who  were  not 
in  the  legislature,  came  up  for  passage  in  the  Senate  it  provided  for 
state  aid.  The  appropriation,  which  was  to  be  divided  among  the 
townships  according  to  the  amount  of  money  they  had  expended  upon 
roads  during  the  preceding  year  was  to  be  used  solely  for  permanent 
construction.11  The  bill  required  a  contribution  from  the  localities 
and  left  the  administration  of  highways  in  the  hands  of  local  officers. 

Many  objections  were  raised  aginst  the  bill.  The  method  of  dis- 
tributing the  subvention  was  attacked  because  it  gave  the  richer  town- 
ships, which,  it  was  said,  were  already  able  to  take  care  of  themselves, 
relatively  larger  amounts  in  proportion  to  their  needs  than  it  gave  the 
poorer  communities.12  In  defense  of  distribution  according  to  amount 
of  taxes  spent  locally  upon  roads  it  was  asserted  that  the  expenditure 
of  the  various  townships  upon  roads  in  previous  years  measured  the  bur- 
den of  road  maintenance  and  that  the  state  should  assist  those  com- 
munities in  which  the  burden  was  greatest.  Moreover  this  method  of 
distribution  was  defended  on  the  ground  that  the  subvention  should 
be  based  on  the  principle  of  assisting  those  communities  that  gave 

10  See  Statement  of  Mr.  Shilleto  in  House  of  Representatives,  25  March,  1891, 
Legislative  Record  (1891),  I,  p.  1084.    See  also  statements  made  in  debate  by  various 
members,  idem,  pp.  969-984. 

11  Legislative  Record  (1891),  I,  p.  754. 

12  Statement  by  Mr.  Hines  in  the  Senate,  11  March,  1891,  Legislative  Record 
(1891),  I,  p.  756. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  207 

evidence  of  interest  in  highway  improvement  by  willingness  to  levy 
taxes.  Otherwise  the  subvention  might  become  a  charitable  donation.13 

The  counter-proposition  to  distribute  the  aid  in  accordance  with 
mileage  was  also  declared  to  be  faulty  because  the  exact  mileage  of  roads 
was  not  determined,  and  because  it  would  encourage  useless  building.14 
Requirements  for  local  taxation  were  vigorously  opposed  by  the  farming 
communities.15  One  member  of  the  legislature  told  of  petitions  received 
from  his  constituents  protesting  against  the  imposition  of  additional 
burdens.16  The  farmers  of  Lancaster  County  were  especially  opposed 
to  the  requirement  of  the  bill  that  25  per  cent  of  the  local  tax  should  be 
expended  on  macadam  construction.17  Other  objections  were  brought 
forward  with  respect  to  the  lack  of  central  supervision,  the  creation  of  a 
new  local  office  (that  of  county  engineer)  and  the  expenditure  of  large 
sums  upon  highways  likely  to  be  of  local  benefit  only.18 

It  seems  clear  that  the  farming  communities  were  anxious  to  have  the 
subvention  introduced  if  the  state  would  furnish  the  larger  part  of  the 
funds  for  construction  and  would  allow  the  local  governmental  units  to 
determine  how  they  should  be  used.  The  bill  was  freely  amended  and 
then  passed  both  houses  only  to  receive  Governor  Pattison's  veto. 

In  refusing  to  sign  the  bill  the  governor  declared  that  the  measure 
was  of  doubtful  constitutionality  because  of  the  provision  in  the  constitu- 
tion prohibiting  the  legislature  from  making  appropriations  to  communi- 
ties. Moreover,  in  his  judgment,  the  bill  was  inequitable,  because  it 
provided  that  moneys  raised  by  taxation  of  the  entire  state  should  be 
expended  for  roads  only  in  the  several  districts.19  Thus  ended  the  at- 
tempt to  provide  better  roads  by  state  aid,  and  for  more  than  a  decade 
the  legislature  took  no  action  looking  toward  the  construction  of  a  system 
of  highways. 

In  1903  the  demand  for  improvement  of  the  roads  had  again  gathered 
sufficient  force  to  result  in  the  passage  of  an  act  providing  for  the  co- 
operation of  the  state,  the  counties,  and  the  townships  in  the  construc- 
tion and  maintenance  of  permanent  highways.  This  law  established  a 

13  Mr.  Lloyd  in  the  Senate,  12  March,  1891,  Legislative  Record  (1891),  I,  pp.  822- 
823. 

14  Idem,  p.  822. 

15  A  Move  for  Better  Roads,  p.  282. 

18  Mr.  Kutz,  in  the  House,  28  April,  1891,  Legislative  Record  (1891),  II,  p.  1912. 

17  Lancaster  Morning  News,  20  March,  1891. 

18  Pittsburgh  Dispatch,  29  April,  1891,  p.  4;  and  6  May,  1891,  p.  4. 

19  The  veto  message  is  printed  in  the  Senate  Journal  (1891),  pp.  1180-1181. 


208  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

state  highway  department  in  charge  of  a  commissioner  who  was  required 
to  be  an  engineer  and  to  have  experience  in  road  construction.20  The 
functions  of  the  commissioner  were,  in  general,  to  make  surveys,  to  give 
estimates  of  the  cost  of  roads,  and  to  let  the  contracts  for  road  improve- 
ments. State  aid  was  distributed  among  the  counties  in  proportion  to 
road  mileage,  the  state  bearing  two-thirds21  of  the  cost  and  the  county 
and  township  the  remaining  one-third. 

This  law  proved  to  be  unsatisfactory  and  unworkable  in  practice, 
Very  little  road  was  built  under  its  provisions,  and  the  next  General 
Assembly  passed  a  new  act,  which  superseded  that  of  1903.  The  law  of 
1905  increased  the  proportion  of  the  cost  of  construction  to  be  borne  by 
the  state  to  75  per  cent.22  In  1907  the  act  of  1905  was  amended  by  in- 
creasing the  personnel  of  the  state  highway  department  and  by  greatly 
augmenting  its  powers.23 

Four  years  later  the  law  of  1905  was  thrown  on  the  scrap  heap  as 
unworkable  and  ineffective.  The  legislature  now  passed  an  act  by  which 
the  State  took  over  a  large  number  of  the  most  frequently  traveled  main 
roads.  In  the  future  these  roads  are  to  be  improved  and  maintained 
by  the  highway  department  entirely  at  state  expense.24  Wherever  the 
state  roads  pass  through  boroughs  or  cities  and  are  constructed  of  maca- 
dam, the  local  government  must  pay  one-half  the  cost  of  maintenance. 
If,  however,  they  are  paved  the  municipality  must  maintain  them  wholly 
at  its  own  expense. 

This  act  also  provides  for  the  co-operation  of  the  state  and  the  locali- 
ties in  constructing  and  maintaining  permanent  highways  upon  routes 
other  than  those  designated  as  "state  highways."  Such  roads  are 
known  as  "state  aid  highways."  The  new  arrangements  enable  any 
locality  that  desires  to  improve  secondary  roads  to  apply  for  aid  to  the 
extent  of  50  per  cent  of  the  cost  of  the  original  construction  and  in  the 
same  proportion  for  lands  purchased  and  damages  incurred.25  The 
townships  and  the  counties  must  pay  50  per  cent,  but  they  may  make 
such  arrangements  as  they  see  fit  concerning  the  proportion  that  each 
must  bear. 

20  Pennsylvania  Road  Laws,  p.  179. 

21  The  law  apparently  anticipated  that  the  remainder  would  be  divided  equally 
between  them,  but  they  were  authorized  to  agree  to  other  proportions. 

22  Act  1  May,  1905,  P.L.  pp.  318-330. 
»  Act  8  June,  1907,  P.L.  pp.  505-520. 
24  Act  31  May,  1911,  P.L.  pp.  468-533. 
"Act  31  May,  1911,  P.L.  pp.  522-527. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  209 

The  subvention  is  apportioned  among  the  townships  by  the  Highway 
Department  in  accordance  with  the  mileage  of  existing  roads,  as  was  the 
case  under  the  act  of  1905 ;  but  the  total  amount  available  for  distribu- 
tion depends,  of  course,  upon  the  action  of  the  legislature.  In  1911, 
$3,000,000  was  appropriated  for  state  highways  and  $1,000,000  for  state 
aid  highways.  Both  amounts  include  appropriations  for  construction 
and  for  maintenance.26  A  large  proportion  of  the  funds  for  road  improve- 
ment is  derived  from  the  fees  for  registering  motor  vehicles,27  which 
amounted  in  1916  to  $2,448,924.28 

In  addition  to  the  direct  subvention  already  described  the  state  agrees 
to  pay  any  township  an  amount  equal  to  50  per  cent  of  the  road  taxes 
collected  in  cash  by  the  township,  but  not  in  excess  of  $20.00  for  each 
mile  of  road  lying  within  its  boundaries.29  The  total  of  state  and  local 
contributions  is  used  for  general  road  construction  and  maintenance. 
Control  of  expenditure  is  in  the  hands  of  local  authorities.  In  1914 
payments  from  the  state  treasury  for  this  purpose  amounted  to  $200,000.30 
This  peculiar  subvention  grew  out  of  the  attempt  to  induce  the  townships 
to  collect  their  road  taxes  in  cash  instead  of  labor.  Reasons  for  the 
inefficiency  of  the  latter  method  are  sufficiently  obvious,  but  the  farming 
communities  clung  to  it.  with  great  tenacity  although  the  bribe  of  a  state 
subvention  if  they  abandoned  it  was  offered  as  early  as  1904.  In  1913, 
when  the  legislature  established  the  Bureau  of  Township  Highways 
within  the  Highway  Department,  it  abolished  the  payment  of  road  taxes 
in  labor  but  retained  the  50  per  cent  contribution  by  the  state.31  This 
bureau  is  to  have  supervision  over  all  highways  constructed  and  main- 
tained with  state  aid,  except  state  highways  and  state  aid  highways.  It 
is  given  the  power  to  prescribe  the  duties  of  township  road  officers. 

Highways  in  Pennsylvania  are  now  of  three  classes.  First  are  the 
state  highways,  which  are  the  main  arteries  of  traffic,  and  which  are  con- 
structed, maintained  and  policed  by  state  officials  and  at  state  expense 
except  where  they  pass  through  boroughs  or  cities.  Second,  there  are 
the  state  aid  highways,  which  are  constructed  and  maintained  under  state 
supervision  that  amounts  practically  to  state  control.  The  cost  is  borne 
equally  by  the  state  and  the  localities.  These  roads  are  presumably 

»  Act  31  May,  1911,  P.  L.  p.  529. 

"See  Acts   21    March,    1913,   P.L.   p.  50,  and  23  May,  1913,   P.L.   p.  300. 

28  Aud.  Gen.  Report  (1916),  Appendix  C. 

29  Act  13  May,  1909,  P.L.  pp.  752-759. 

30  Aud.  Gen.  Report  (1914),  p.  523. 

31  Act  22  July,  1913,  P.L.  pp.  915-927. 


210  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

important  local  thoroughfares,  but  not  in  the  line  of  heavy  traffic  between 
large  centers  of  population.  Third,  there  are  the  local  roads,  chiefly 
unmetalled,  which  are  controlled  by  the  township  and  county  authorities 
under  state  supervision.  The  cost  of  maintaining  these  is  borne  by  the 
locality  with  the  assistance  of  the  state  through  the  contribution  of  50 
per  cent  of  the  local  tax,  but  not  over  $20.00  per  mile. 

It  is  at  once  evident  that  the  movement  toward  centralization  in 
highway  construction  and  maintenance  has  been  very  rapid  since  1905. 
Local  control  had  existed  from  the  foundation  of  the  colony  until  1903, 
when  a  mild  form  of  state  supervision  with  a  subvention  was  inaugurated. 
But  this  scheme  proved  ineffectual  because  the  localities  did  not  always 
wish  to  build  good  roads,  even  though  the  state  contributed  75  per  cent 
of  the  cost,  because  local  control  did  not  lead  to  the  construction  of  a  sys- 
tem of  roads;  and,  because  it  was  found  that  township  officers,  even 
under  central  supervision,  could  not  be  relied  upon  to  keep  the  roads  in 
good  repair.  Finally,  with  the  increase  of  automobile  traffic  the  opinion 
became  current  that  the  main  highways  were  of  state-wide  importance 
and  of  general,  rather  than  local  benefit.  Hence  their  management  was 
thought  to  be  a  matter  for  state  and  not  local  control.  The  example  of 
other  states,  such  as  New  York,  was  also  a  cause  for  centralization. 

In  the  case  of  the  less  important  roads  the  inefficiency  of  township 
administration  and  the  desire  of  the  farming  communities  to  shift  the 
the  burden  of  expense  seem  to  have  been  the  principal  controlling  factors 
leading  to  centralization.  Moreover,  in  both  cases,  the  tendency  of  a 
large  state  department  to  extend  its  activities  is  also  apparent. 

It  may  be  asked  why  the  movement  toward  centralization  has  been 
so  much  more  rapid  in  the  case  cf  highways  than  in  the  case  of  education 
and  charitable  relief.  The  answer  is  not  entirely  forthcoming,  but 
certain  reasons  are  clear.  In  the  first  place  the  inefficiency  of  local 
management  is  much  more  patent  in  the  case  of  roads  than  in  the  other 
two  services.  The  quality  of  highways  is  a  matter  concerning  which 
every  person  can  judge,  while  in  the  other  cases  the  quality  of  service 
can  be  evaluated  only  by  the  trained  and  experienced  few.  Moreover, 
a  larger  number  of  persons  is  daily  brought  into  direct  contact  with 
the  service  in  the  case  of  roads  than  in  the  matters  of  education  and 
charitable  relief;  and  the  people  who  use  the  principal  highways  most 
frequently  belong  to  the  wealthier  and  more  influential  classes  that  are 
accustomed  to  leadership  and  control.  That  these  classes  should  be 
able  to  obtain  speedy  action  from  the  legislature  is  not,  therefore,  a 
surprising  matter. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  211 

In  the  second  place,  no  strong  vested  interests,  whose  influence  might 
have  been  exerted  against  change,  as  is  the  case  with  hospitals  and  or- 
phanages, have  been  encountered  in  the  reform  of  highway  administra- 
tion. Thirdly,  the  economy  and  increased  efficiency  resulting  from 
centralization  are  probably  greater,  and  at  least  more  patent,  in  highway 
management  than  in  education  or  in  the  care  and  treatment  of  the  insane 
and  the  indigent  sick.  Fourthly,  it  has  been  asserted,  political  influences 
favored  centralization  of  highway  control  while  they  have  generally 
opposed  it  for  hospitals  and  orphanages.  Finally,  strong  prejudices 
against  centralization,  which  spring  from  religious  motives,  were  not 
encountered  in  the  case  of  highway  management  as  they  have  been  in 
the  case  of  homes  and  orphanages. 


CHAPTER  IX 
SUBVENTIONS  FOR  CHARITY,  1874  TO  1916 

THE  GROWTH  OF  THE  SUBVENTIONS  FOR  CHARITY,  1874  TO  1916 

Subventions  for  charity  from  the  Pennsylvania  state  treasury  at 
the  present  time  are  paid  in  part  to  the  counties  and  in  part  to  a  large 
number  of  privately  managed  eleemosynary  institutions  and  voluntary 
organizations.  The  counties  received,  in  1916,  $697,457  for  the  partial 
maintenance  of  the  asylums  for  the  insane  that  many  of  them  have 
established.1  In  the  same  year  privately  managed  hospitals  and  other 
institutions  for  the  treatment  of  the  sick  received  $2, 268,497. 2  and  pri- 
vately managed  schools  for  the  blind,  for  the  deaf  and  dumb,  and  for 
feeble-minded  children  were  paid  $499, 53 1.3  A  reformatory  for  children 
under  partial  private  control  received  $175, 144,4  and  an  asylum  for  the  in- 
sane, under  similar  management,  received  $125,246.  In  addition  to  these 
amounts  $422,613  was  paid  as  subsidies  to  homes  for  the  aged,  orphan- 
ages, and  miscellaneous  organizations  engaged  in  some  form  of  charitable 
work.5  In  brief  the.  state  paid  $3,491,031  to  privately  managed  institu- 
tions and  $697,457,  to  the  counties  or  a  total  of  $4,188,488. 

The  true  importance  and  magnitude  of  these  payments  is  better 
appreciated  when  compared  with  other  items  of  state  expenditure  in 
the  same  year.  The  subvention  to  common  schools  amounted  in  1916 
to  $8,663,175,  and  the  grants  for  all  educational  purposes  totaled 
$11,247,884.6  Expenditure  for  highway  construction  and  maintenance 
was  $3,732,386,  and  for  the  department  of  health  $2,263,512,7  while  the 
total  of  all  payments  from  the  state  treasury  was  $35, 489,553. 8  Subven- 
tions to  privately  managed  hospitals  exceeded  in  amount  the  payments 
from  the  state  treasury  for  any  other  specific  service,  the  support  of 

1  Aud.  Gen.  Report  (1916),  pp.  635-639. 

2  Idem,  pp.  639-650. 
*Idem,  p.  651. 

4  Idem,  p.  635. 

5  These  organizations  included  societies  for  the  prevention  of  cruelty  to  children, 
children's  aid  societies,  anti-tuberculosis  leagues,  organizations  for  reclaiming  and  pro- 
tecting delinquent  children,  and  for  the  assistance  of  women  and  girls  who  have  been 
guilty  of  infraction  of  certain  moral  laws. 

•  Table  III,  Appendix. 

7  Aud.  Gen.  Report  (1916),  p.  599. 

8  Idem,  table  following  p.  679. 

212 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  213 

the  common  schools  and  the  construction  and  maintenance  of  highways 
excepted. 

Lavish  expenditure  for  subventions  to  private  charitable  institutions 
is,  practically  speaking,  a  product  of  the  last  twenty-five  years.  In 
1891  the  state  paid  only  $661,197  for  all  such  subventions.  The  increase, 
which  amounts  to  428  per  cent,  has  been  due  chiefly  to  the  remarkable 
and  growing  liberality  of  the  legislature  toward  local  hospitals.  Subven- 
tions to  these  institutions  in  1914  exceeded  those  of  1891  by  more  than 
1500  per  cent,  and  those  of  1892  by  over  940  per  cent.  On  the  other 
hand,  grants  to  private  institutions  for  training  and  caring  for  the  blind, 
deaf  mutes,  the  feeble  minded,  and  the  insane  only  increased  from 
$374,681  to  $538,490  during  the  period  1891  to  1914,  and  those  to  re- 
formatories from  $65,000  to  $150,942.  Clearly,  then,  the  great  expan- 
sion of  the  subvention  for  charity  cannot  be  charged  to  these  latter  two 
classes  of  grants.  Two  other  types  of  subvention  are  jointly  responsible 
with  the  appropriations  to  hospitals  for  the  increase.  The  grant  in 
aid  to  county  asylums  for  the  insane  first  made  its  appearance  in  the 
financial  reports  in  1896  as  a  very  moderate  payment  of  $75,527,  but 
by  1914  it  was  more  than  ten  times  as  large.  In  the  second  place,  the 
subvention  to  orphanages,  homes  for  the  aged,  and  to  miscellaneous 
organizations  increased  from  $35,107  in  1891  to  $381,655  in  1914,  a 
gain  of  over  900  per  cent. 

The  number  of  institutions  receiving  state  aid  has,  of  course,  increased 
very  greatly.  In  1881  grants  were  made  to  seven  hospitals  and  ten  years 
later  to  thirty-six.9  In  1914  the  Auditor  General  reports  a  list  of  155 
hospitals,  including  those  connected  with  medical  colleges,  as  recipients 
of  state  aid.  In  1916  the  number  was  161.  The  number  of  homes  and 
miscellaneous  organizations  has  also  increased  rapidly  in  recent  years. 
In  1896  only  36  homes,  orphanages  and  miscellaneous  organizations  re- 
ceived aid.  In  1914,  one  hundred  and  nine,  and  in  1916  one  hundred 
and  seven  homes  and  orphanages  and  miscellaneous  organizations  appear 
in  the  lists  of  the  Auditor  General. 

The  results  of  a  comparison  of  present-day  expenditures  with  those 
of  the  years  1874  to  1888  are  still  more  striking.  In  the  earlier  year  the 
schools  for  the  blind,  deaf-mutes,  and  the  feeble-minded  received 
$118,139;  reformatories  $135,500;  an  asylum  for  the  insane  $52,250; 
hospitals  $127,500;  orphanages  $12,500;  and  miscellaneous  organizations 

8  Roberts,  J.  B.  State  Appropriations  to  Hospitals  not  under  State  Control. 
What  Pennsylvania  is  Doing,  Pennsylvania  Medical  Journal,  Vol.  XIII  (1910),  p.  253. 


214  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

31,500;  or  a  total  of  3447, 389.10  But,  by  1878,  owing  to  the  lack  of  revenue 
and  the  influence  of  the  new  constitution,  the  total  payments  for  sub- 
ventions to  charitable  institutions  had  been  measurably  reduced  and 
amounted  to  only  3136,822.  In  1879  the  total  was  3155,580,  and  in 
1880,  3459,471.  At  no  time  between  1874  and  1888  did  the  appropria- 
tions to  privately  managed  hospitals  exceed  3100,000.  Orphanages, 
not  including  those  for  soldiers'  orphans,  never  received  more  than 
322,500  in  any  one  year  from  1874  to  1890,  while  payments  to  homes 
for  the  aged  and  to  miscellaneous  organizations  were  practically  negli- 
gible. During  the  years  1875  to  1890  the  largest  part  of  the  subventions 
for  charity  was  paid  to  the  institutions  for  defectives. 

The  prodigious  growth  of  subventions  for  charity  in  recent  years  has 
been  due  to  many  forces,  some  of  which  are  most  obscure  in  their  nature 
and  indirect  in  their  operation.  First  among  these  forces  is  the  tendency 
toward  the  socialization  of  many  services  previously  regarded  as  outside 
the  proper  sphere  of  governmental  action.  Elaboration  of  public  educa- 
tion, the  extension  of  facilities  for  public  recreation,  improvements  in 
sanitation,  and  the  development  of  highly  specialized  institutions  for  the 
care  and  treatment  of  defectives  are  all  evidences  of  this  tendency.  Now 
the  increase  of  public  expenditure  for  these  purposes  is  practically  nation- 
wide. But  in  a  large  majority  of  the  states  the  extension  of  the  scope  of 
eleemosynary  institutions  has  been  accomplished  under  state  ownership 
and  management.  In  Pennsylvania,  however,  the  state  has  pursued  a 
dual  policy:  It  has  built  large  and  costly  institutions  directly  adminis- 
tered by  its  own  officers  and  at  the  same  time  it  has  paid  liberal  subsidies 
to  privately  managed  institutions  and  organizations  providing  the  same 
services.11 

The  extent  of  the  state's  payments  for  institutions  directly  under  its 
own  control  and  the  growth  of  such  payments  from  1891  to  1916  are 
shown  in  the  table  on  the  following  page. 

The  total  of  all  payments  for  institutions  under  state  control  was 
greater  by  31,498,313  in  1916  than  the  total  of  the  subventions 
paid  to  privately  managed  charities.  But  the  increase  in  the  amount 
expended  by  the  state  for  institutions  directly  administered  from  1891 

10  The  classification  of  the  Auditor  General  has  not  been  preserved.    Homes  for 
the  feeble-minded  and  for  the  blind  have  been  excluded  from  the  totals  given  in  the 
text  of  his  report  as  have  also  homes  for  defectives. 

11  For  a  brief  statement  of  the  extent  of  subventions  to  private  charitable  insti- 
tutions in  other  states  see  an  article  by  Mr.  Alexander  Fleisher,  State  Money  and  Pri- 
vately Managed  Charities,  The  Survey,  Vol.  XXXIII  (1914),  pp.  110-112. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 


215 


PAYMENTS  FROM  THE  STATE  TREASURY  FOR  THE  SUPPORT  OF  STATE 
INSTITUTIONS,  INCLUDING  PENITENTIARIES,  REFORM- 
ATORIES, INSTITUTIONS  FOR  DEFECTIVES,  HOSPI- 
TALS, THE  SOLDIERS'  AND  SAILORS'  HOME, 
SOLDIERS'  ORPHANS'  SCHOOLS,  AND 
SANITORIA,  IN  1891  AND  IN  19141 


Institutions 

1891* 

1916s 

Penitentiaries    

$  95,140 

$   520,551 

Pennsylvania  Industrial  Reformatory,  Huntingdon3  
Pennsylvania  Reform  School,  Morganza4 

92,944 
60409 

131,311 
115,722 

State  Asylums  for  the  insane  

450,455 

1,543,792 

Institutions  for  defectives                                              .... 

741,707 

Hospitals6  

87,640 

384,195 

Soldiers'  and  Sailors'  Home  

72,500 

99,500 

Soldiers'  Orphans'  Schools 

132  393 

89,663 

Sanitoria8  

1,362,903 

Total  

$991,481 

$4,989,3447 

1  From  the  Reports  of  the  Auditors  General  for  the  years  given.    The  amounts 
given  do  not  include  payments  for  such  administrative  expenses  as  the  salaries   or 
expenses  of  the  Board  of  Pardons,  the  Board  of  Public  Charities,  and  the  like. 

2  For  the  fiscal  year  ending  November  30. 

3  An  industrial  reformatory  for  men  and  boys. 
*  A  reformatory  for  children. 

6  The  state  maintains  a  number  of  hospitals  for  injured  miners  in  the  coal  regions. 

6  These  sanitoria  are  for  the  treatment  of  tuberculosis. 

7  In  addition  to  this  amount  the  state  expended  $133,678  for  the  construction  of 
buildings  for  new  institutions  not  yet  in  operation. 


to  1914  was  383  per  cent,  and  to  1916,  402  per  cent,  while  payments  to 
privately  managed  concerns  increased  654  per  cent  to  1914,  and  428  per 
cent  to  1916.  It  should  also  be  noted  that  nearly  one-half  of  the  pay- 
ments to  state  institutions  were  for  the  support  of  penitentiaries,  reforma- 
tories, or  asylums  for  the  insane. 

The  increase  in  total  payments  for  charitable  institutions,  both  state 
and  private,  and  for  reformatories  in  Pennsylvania  may  properly  be 
regarded  as  the  result  of  forces  that  are  everywhere  at  work  to  augment 
governmental  expenditures  for  these  objects.  But  the  growth  of  the 
subventions  both  in  absolute  amount  and  as  compared  with  expenditures 


216  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

for  state  institutions  must  be  traced  to  causes  peculiar  to  Pennsylvania, 
since  a  similar  development  is  not  common  among  other  states  of  the 
union. 

The  most  general  explanation  of  the  enlargement  of  the  grants  is  that 
they  are  a  product  of  haphazard  methods  in  state  finance.  Boards  of 
trustees  and  managers  of  hospitals  and  homes  are  very  naturally  desirous 
of  obtaining  assistance  from  the  state  if  the  conditions  attached  to  the 
payment  of  appropriations  are  neither  numerous  nor  exacting.  In 
Pennsylvania,  the  conditions  imposed  have  been  extremely  liberal. 
Furthermore,  the  state  has  never  had  a  budgetary  policy.  Without 
careful  comparison  of  the  amounts  expended  for  various  general  divisions 
of  governmental  activity,  and  without  judicious  appraisal  of  the  relative 
benefit  to  be  derived  from  each  service,  it  is  not  difficult  for  one  or  two 
branches  of  expenditure  to  out-run  all  others.  The  absence  of  such 
comparison  and  appraisal  in  Pennsylvania  has  made  it  possible  for  the 
subventions  to  privately  managed  concerns  to  increase  rapidly. 

A  further  cause  for  the  increase  of  this  type  of  subvention  is  the 
character  of  the  state's  revenue  system.  Practically  all  the  revenue 
of  the  state  is  derived  from  taxes  upon  corporate  wealth  or  upon  business, 
and  the  majority  of  the  people  and  of  the  voters  pay  no  direct  state 
taxes.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  property  owners  throughout  the  state 
are  only  indirectly  interested  from  a  pecuniary  standpoint  in  the  disposi- 
tion of  funds  by  the  legislature.  Without  attempting  to  state  at  this 
point  whether  the  subvention  policy  is  good  or  bad,  we  may  still  assert 
that  it  seems  very  likely  that  a  lack  of  interest  on  the  part  of  the  majority 
of  taxpayers  makes  lavish  expenditure  possible. 

Large  subventions  to  privately  managed  concerns  are  further  facili- 
tated by  that  clause  of  the  constitution  which  requires  the  appropriation 
to  each  charitable  institution  to  be  voted  upon  as  a  separate  measure. 
The  purpose  of  this  provision  was  to  make  each  grant  stand  upon  its  own 
merits  and  to  prevent  improper  and  indefensible  subsidies  from  being 
included  in  the  same  bill  with  such  necessary  and  urgent  appropriations 
as  those  for  the  support  of  general  government.  But  in  recent  years 
the  number  of  appropriation  bills  has  become  so  large  that  it  is  practically 
impossible  for  the  members  of  the  legislature  to  get  a  comprehensive 
view  of  the  total  of  appropriations  for  charity.  The  ordinary  member 
cannot  know  definitely  when  he  is  asked  to  vote  upon  a  grant  to  any  given 
institution  how  large  will  be  the  total  of  all  such  grants  when  the  session 
is  over.  To  make  each  institution  stand  on  its  own  merits  is  undoubtedly 
a  wise  provision,  but  a  systematic  budgetary  statement  should  be  insti- 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  217 

tuted  in  order  that  the  members  of  the  General  Assembly  may  know 
how  large  the  total  of  such  appropriations  will  probably  be  after  all  pro- 
posed bills  have  been  passed. 

At  the  present  time  the  amount  granted  to  any  particular  institution, 
and  the  total  of  all  appropriations  are  determined,  subject  to  the  gover- 
nor's veto,  by  the  chairmen  of  the  appropriation  committees.  When  the 
bills  are  reported  by  the  committees  they  are,  in  a  majority  of  cases, 
accepted  by  the  two  houses  without  question.12  In  one  instance  in 
recent  years  the  Senate  refused  to  consider  the  protest  of  a  senator 
against  an  appropriation  to  an  organization  in  his  own  district.13  Pro- 
cedure within  the  committees  is  not  revealed  to  the  public.  Only  infre- 
quently is  it  necessary  for  a  committee  to  explain  why  the  grant  to  a 
hospital  or  home  has  been  increased  or  decreased,  and  there  is  ground  for 
believing  that  the  real  reasons  for  making  some  appropriations  would 
not  bear  inspection.14 

A  reading  of  the  laws  upon  the  subject  might  lead  one  to  believe  that 
the  state  board  of  charities  played  an  important  part  in  determining  the 
amount  and  distribution  of  the  total  appropriation.  Each  institution  is 
required  to  submit  to  inspection  by  a  representative  of  the  board  whose 
duty  it  is  to  decide  whether  the  work  of  the  concern  is  satisfactory. 
Furthermore  each  organization  that  expects  to  receive  state  aid  is  legally 
required  to  make  its  request  through  the  board.  The  board  then  decides 
upon  the  amount  that,  in  its  judgment,  should  be  granted  each  institu- 
tion and  transmits  its  recommendations  to  the  General  Assembly. 

The  appropriation  committees  appear  to  pay  little  attention  to  these 
recommendations,  preferring  to  rely  for  guidance  upon  the  reports  of  their 
sub-committees  and  upon  such  other  information  as  may  come  to  them. 
In  1913,  157  private  hospitals  and  7  sanitoria  for  consumptives  applied 
to  the  state  board  for  aid.  They  asked  for  $6,660,763  for  maintenance 
and  $3,944,431  for  buildings  for  the  biennium  ending  May  31,1915.  The 
board  recommended  $5 ,013, 138  for  maintenance  and  $32,000  for  building 
Seven  applications  were  rejected  entirely.13  Homes  and  miscellaneous. 

12  Fleisher,  A.  Pennsylvania's  Appropriations  to  Privately  Managed  Charitable 
Institutions.    Pol.  Sci.  Quar.  Vol.  XXX.  p.  29. 

13  Ibid. 

14  See  infra  pp.  218  ff.  where  this  subject  is  taken  up  more  fully. 

15  Board  of  Public  Charities,  Preliminary  Report  (1913),  pp.  149-156.     In  a  leaflet 
published  subsequent  to  the  Preliminary  Report  the  statement  is  made  that  149  hos- 
pitals were  recommended  to  receive  $4,949,638  for  maintenance  and  $32,000  for  build- 


218  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

institutions  asked  for  $1,757,950  for  maintenance  and  $537,690  for 
buildings.  The  board  approved  $1,058,152  for  maintenance  and  $1,000 
for  buildings.16  The  legislature  at  its  next  session,  in  1913,  voted 
$7,189,900  to  hospitals  and  sanitoria  for  maintenance  and  buildings,17 
and  $1,198,565  to  homes  and  miscellaneous  organizations.18 

It  is  apparent  from  the  data  that  in  making  up  the  appropriations  for 
subventions  for  charity  the  committees  pay  very  little  attention  to  the 
advice  of  the  board.  It  is  commonly  stated  by  legislators  and  by  other 
state  officials  in  conversation  that  the  General  Assembly  has  in  the  past 
approved  these  bills  with  a  full  knowledge  that  they  are  excessive,  that 
the  revenues  of  the  state  will  not  be  sufficient  to  meet  them,  and  that  the 
governor  will  be  compelled  to  reduce  them.  This  practice  is  undoubtedly 
responsible  in  part  for  the  growth  of  appropriations  to  privately  managed 
charities. 

The  increase  of  biennial  appropriations  under  this  system  is  shown 
in  the  table  on  following  page. 

Large  appropriations  to  these  institutions  have  also  been  due  in  the 
past  to  political  manipulation.  It  has  been  asserted,19  and  never  suc- 
cessfully denied,  that  the  appropriations  have  been  used  to  further  the 
interests  of  political  parties.  A  conservative  newspaper  stated  in  1912 
that  the  appropriations  were  "  .  .  .  made  one  of  the  agencies  by  which 
the  corrupt  political  machine  has  cemented  its  power  among  its  fol- 
lowers in  the  Senate  and  House,  and  among  the  people  who  are  interested 
in  humanitarian  uplift."20 

The  grants  are  used  by  those  in  power  in  a  number  of  ways.  Some- 
times a  portion  of  the  appropriation,  it  is  asserted,  is  paid  by  the  bene- 


ings.  See  Commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania,  Statistics  Compiled  by  the  Board  of  Public 
Charities,  showing  amounts  recommended,  appropriated  and  approved  for  charities, 
session  of  1913,  for  the  two  years  ending  May  31, 1915. 

16  Board  of  Public  Charities,  Preliminary  Report  (1913),  p.  164. 

17  Statistics  Compiled  by  the  Board  of  Public  Charities,  etc.,  A  leaflet. 

18  These  figures  do  not  include  the  appropriations  to  schools  for  defectives  or  for 
reformatories  or  for  the  county  hospitals  for  the  insane. 

19  See  a  series  of  papers  read  in  the  general  meeting  of  the  Medical  Society  of  the 
State  of  Pennsylvania,  in  1909,  especially  those  by  Dr.  John  B.  Roberts  and  Dr. 
Horace  G.  McCormick,  Pennsylvania  Medical  Journal,  vol.  XIII,  pp.  250-267,  and 
the  discussion  following.     Even  those  among  the  medical  profession  who  defended 
the  grants  to  hospitals  could  not  deny  that  politics  played  a  part  in  the  appropriations. 

20  Philadelphia  Public  Ledger,  9  May,  1912. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  219 

LEGISLATIVE  APPROPRIATIONS  FOR  CHARITY,  1889-19 131 


Legislative 

Appropriations  to  state 

Appropriations  to  institutions 

bienniums2 

and  semi-state  institutions' 

not  under  state  control4 

1889-91 
1891-93 

$1,511,077 
2,184,208 

$1,644,096 
1,722,687 

1893-95 

2,194,086 

2,496,516 

1895-97 

2,356,440 

2,371,144 

1897-99 

2,603,387 

2,434,687 

1899-01 

2,860,694 

2,299,030 

1901-03 

3,277,790 

3,024,025 

1903-05 

4,671,723 

4,657,100 

1905-07 

6,858,179 

4,142,550 

1907-09 

4,961,975 

5,502,600 

1909-11 

5,362,864 

5,300,400 

1911-12 

6,047,187 

6,249,400 

1913-15 

6,747,246 

5,960,520 

1  Board  of  Public  Charities,  Report  (1915),  p.  260. 

2  The  legislature  meets  in  odd  years,  and  appropriations  are  for  expenditures  for 
the  two  years  beginning  June  1  of  the  year  in  which  they  meet. 

3  State  institutions  are  those  entirely  under  the  ownership  and  control  of  the  state. 
But  appropriations  for  the  indigent  insane,  for  the  treatment  of  tuberculosis,  and  for 
soldiers'  orphans  are  not  included.     Semi-state  institutions  include  the  schools  for  the 
blind,  the  deaf-mutes,  and  for  a  private  hospital  for  the  insane.    These  institutions 
are  either  paid  an  annual  amount  for  each  person  cared  for  at  state  expense  or  are  given 
lump-sum  grants;  they  are  partly  controlled  by  the  state. 

4  These  include  privately  managed  hospitals,  homes  for  children  and  the  aged, 
training  schools,  industrial  schools,  societies  for  the  prevention  and  treatment  of  tuber- 
culosis and  some  miscellaneous  organizations. 


ficiary  of  the  grant  into  the  local  party  treasury.21  But  such  methods 
are  not  usual.  Probably  the  most  common  method  of  utilizing  the 
grants  for  political  purposes  is  their  employment  to  influence  the  votes 
of  members  of  the  state  legislature.  If  a  member  fails  to  secure  liberal 
appropriations  for  the  various  charitable  organizations  in  his  district 
he  endangers  his  chances  of  re-election.  On  the  other  hand,  if  he  is  very 
successful  in  obtaining  subsides  he  is  sure  of  the  support  of  the  voters 
interested  in,  or  connected  with  the  institutions  receiving  aid.  Thus 


11  See  a  statement  by  H.  W.  Cattell,  Discussion,  Pennsylvania  Medical  Journal, 
Vol.  XIII,  pp.  267-277. 


220  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

the  subsides  to  privately  managed  charities  are  Pennsylvania's  "pork 
barrel."22 

The  use  of  the  subvention  for  political  purposes  is  not  of  recent 
origin.23  In  1891  Albert  S.  Bolles  stated  that  the  appropriations  were 
not  made  in  accordance  with  any  rule  and  that  he  had  evidence  that 
in  some  cases  the  state  paid  more  than  the  entire  annual  expenses  of 
the  institutions  subsidized.24  However,  the  more  serious  evil  was  the 
demoralization  of  the  members  of  the  legislature.  Friends  of  the  "chari- 
ties" had  used  their  influence  to  secure  the  appointment  of  committees 
favorable  to  lavish  distributions.25  ' '  When  this  preliminary  is  finished,  the 
work  of  the  legislator  begins.  He  must  never  lose  sight  of  the  'charity' 
in  his  district.  He  must,  therefore,  keep  on  good  terms  with  everybody; 
he  must  antagonize  no  one;  he  must  oppose  no  scheme  however  bad  it 
may  be;  he  must  help  others  whether  their  bills  are  meritorious  or  not, 
...  all  these  things  must  be  done  in  order  to  secure  an  appropriation 
for  the  'charity'  in  his  own  district.  And  still  more,  the  less  deserving 
the  charity  the  harder  he  must  labor,  the  more  he  must  debase  himself  in 
order  to  succeed.  "26  For,  if  he  did  not,  it  was  very  probable  that  he 
would  fail  of  re-election. 

In  recent  years  newspaper  comment  on  the  subject  has  been  frequent. 
At  times  it  has  been  plainly  stated  that  the  making  of  appropriations 
has  involved  political  support.27  In  1905  the  Board  of  Public  Charities, 
in  advocating  a  uniform  system  for  determining  the  amount  of  the  appro- 
priations, stated  that  the  application  of  a  rigid  rule  "...  would  do 
away  with  what  is  now  a  crying  evil,  an  institution  of  great  influence 
being  able,  under  the  present  system,  to  secure  a  much  larger  appropria- 
tion than  is  possible  to  a  similar  institution  doing  the  same  service, 
but  not  possessing  the  same  influence.  "28 

Instances  of  careless  extravagance  are  sometimes  discovered.  In 
1899  the  legislature  appropriated  $175,000  annually  for  the  Soldiers' 

22  See  a  statement  by  Mr.  Dunn  in  the  House  of  Representatives  in  1913.     Legis- 
lative Journal,  p.  487. 

23  For  conditions  existing  1860-1870  see  Chapter  V. 

24  Revenue  Commission  of  1889,  Report,  p.  147. 
26  Idem,  p.  148. 

26  Ibid. 

27  See  Philadelphia   Public    Ledger,  19  January,    1910;  29    December,   1910;  9 
May,  1913;  and  7  April,  1913;  also  Press,  18  January,  1910,  and  21  May,  1913  for 
comments  on  the  wastefulness  of  appropriations.     See  also  Record,  20  January,  1910; 
Inquirer,  18  January,  1910;  Public  Ledger,  9  May,  1912. 

28  Report  (1905),  p.  4.     Italics  are  the  author's. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  221 

and  Sailors'  Home  at  Erie.  The  governor  reduced  this  to  $100,000, 
because  only  that  amount  had  been  used  annually  by  the  home  during 
the  previous  two  years,  although  $175,000  had  been  appropriated.29 
In  1913,  the  Charleroi-Monessen  Hospital,  in  Washington  County,  asked 
the  Board  of  Public  Charities  for  $10,000  for  the  two  years  ending  May 
31,  1915.30  The  board  approved  $5,000.31  When  the  bill  making  the 
appropriation  came  up  for  final  passage  in  the  House  it  carried  $20,000.32 
In  the  same  year  the  Punxsutawney  Hospital  Association  applied  for 
$28,000,  which  the  board  reduced  in  its  recommendation  to  $19,200, 
or  $9,600  annually.  The  report  reads,  "//  need  is  the  test,  the  recom- 
mendation should  be  $9,600. "^  The  committee  on  appropriations, 
whose  chairman  represented  the  district  in  which  the  hospital  was  located, 
reported  an  appropriation  of  $53,000  for  two  years.34  Commenting 
on  the  subventions  to  private  hospitals  in  Pennsylvania,  Mr.  Abraham 
Flexner  says,  "That  this  policy  is  thoroughly  objectionable  and  demora- 
lizing is  beyond  dispute.  The  state  has  neither  right  nor  business  to  make 
presents  to  private  corporations  that  it  can  neither  regulate  nor  control. 
And  the  level  of  civic  life  in  Pennsylvania  has  been  greatly  lowered  by 
the  log-rolling  and  favoritism  that  the  possibilities  of  'pull'  have 
created."35 

In  brief,  the  appropriations  have  grown  because  the  party  leaders 
have  found  in  them  a  convenient  means  for  securing  the  adherence  of 
influential  citizens  and  for  coercing  members  of  the  legislature.  Sub- 
ventions are  more  effective  for  accomplishing  these  ends  than  are  ap- 
propriations to  state  institutions,  since  no  locality  takes  as  much  interest 
in  a  state  hospital  or  orphanage  as  it  does  in  one  that  is  controlled, 
managed  and  supported,  in  part,  by  the  leaders  in  town  or  city  life. 

Before  the  subventions  could  have  been  converted  into  a  political 
tool,  however,  they  must  have  been  approved  by  a  large  portion  of  the 
voters  within  the  state.  It  would  be  absurd  to  suppose  that  so  large 
a  proportion  of  the  state  funds  as  is  now  paid  to  privately  managed 
charities  could  continue  to  be  so  disbursed  if  the  voters  of  the  state 
were  opposed  to  the  policy.  A  threat  from  the  party  leaders  that  the 

29  P.L.  (1889) ,  p.  345.    This  is  a  state  institution. 

80  Board  of  Public  Charities,  Preliminary  Report  (1913),  p.  44. 

31  Ibid . 

32  Legislative  Journal,  p.  3661,  col.  1. 

33  Preliminary  Report  (1913),  p.  77.     Italics  are  the  author's. 
84  Legislative  Journal,  p.  4214. 

86  Medical  Education  in  the  United  States  and  Canada,  p.  299.  The  entire  context 
is  given  but  the  last  sentence  is  the  significant  one  for  this  discussion. 


222  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

appropriations  for  institutions  in  his  district  will  be  reduced  can  be 
effective  in  coercing  a  legislator  only  if  his  constituents  expect  him  to 
secure  those  appropriations.  A  fundamental  reason  for  the  existence, 
persistence,  and  growth  of  the  subventions  is  the  fact  that  the  people 
of  Pennsylvania  demand  them. 

But  this  demand  is  not  necessarily  the  product  of  a  reasoned  con- 
clusion that  the  subvention  system  is  the  best  that  can  be  devised.  It 
is  more  the  result  of  local  enterprise,  local  civic  pride,  and  a  strong  compet- 
itive spirit.  If  one  town  in  a  county  receives  a  subvention  that  enables 
it  to  maintain  a  first-class  hospital,  other  towns  of  equal  importance 
very  naturally  seek  to  establish  hospitals  by  the  same  means.  Moreover, 
the  rivalry  is  not  confined  to  cities.  Charitable  organizations,  churches 
that  control  eleemosynary  institutions,  and  even  groups  of  physicians 
seek  to  obtain  grants  to  build  up  hospitals,  homes,  and  other  Institutions. 
Once  a  few  subventions  have  been  made,  the  demand  is  sure  to  grow 
as  the  unaided  organizations  perceive  how  much  easier  it  is  to  secure 
funds  from  the  legislature  than  from  individual  contributors. 

That  the  hospitals  and  homes  in  many  communities  could  not  be 
maintained  without  state  aid  is  conceded  by  practically  everybody. 
That  the  work  they  do  is  mostly  meritorious  and  generally  undertaken 
by  their  trustees  and  stockholders  for  humanitarian  pruposes  and  with 
the  highest  ideals  is  also  conceded.  Because  these  institutions  are  opera- 
ted for  such  laudable  purposes  it  is  difficult  for  the  people  in  the  com- 
munities in  which  they  are  located  to  understand  why  the  state  should 
not  aid  them  liberally.  One  who  questions  the  wisdom  of  the  grants 
is  everywhere  met  with  the  reply  that  hospitals  and  orphanages  are 
philanthropic  enterprises,  that  their  sole  function  is  to  relieve  human 
suffering  and  to  alleviate  misfortune,  and  that  no  worthier  object  of 
public  expenditure  can  be  named.  In  this  manner,  expansion  of  the 
appropriations  is  usually  justified  alike  by  physicians,  by  trustees,  and 
by  the  general  public.36 

THE  CONSTITUTIONALITY  or  THE  GRANTS 

Two  sections  of  Article  III  of  the  present  constitution  of  the  state 
deal  especially  with  appropriations  to  charitable  institutions.  The 
first  provision  is  as  follows:  Article  III,  Section  17.  "No  appropriation 
shall  be  made  to  any  charitable  or  educational  institution  not  under  the 
absolute  control  of  the  Commonwealth,  other  than  normal  schools 

*  See  itatement  by  Dr.  Horace  G.  McCormick,  Advantages  of  the  Pennsylvania 
System,  Pennsylvania  Medical  Journal,  Vol.  XIII,  pp.  265-267. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  223 

established  by  law  for  the  professional  training  of  teachers  for  the  public 
schools  of  the  State,  except  by  a  vote  of  two- thirds  of  all  the  members 
elected  to  each  House."37 

This  provision  does  not,  it  is  obvious,  enjoin  the  legislature  from 
making  appropriations  to  private  institutions  and  organizations.  It 
merely  requires  that  they  shall  be  passed  by  a  two-thirds  majority  of 
all  the  members  elected  to  each  house.  The  purpose  of  the  makers  of 
the  constitution  in  inserting  this  provision  in  the  fundamental  law  was 
undoubtedly  to  exclude  from  participation  in  the  bounty  of  the  state 
all  institutions  that  did  not  have  a  clear  claim  to  such  assistance.38 

The  next  section  reads  as  follows:  Article  III,  Section  18.  "No 
appropriation,  except  for  pensions  or  gratuities  for  military  services, 
shall  be  made  for  charitable,  educational  or  benevolent  purposes,  to 
any  person  or  community,  nor  to  any  denominational  or  sectarian  in- 
institution,  corporation  or  association."39 

The  wording  of  this  section  seems  to  indicate  the  intention  of  the 
convention  absolutely  to  prohibit  appropriations  for  educational  or 
charitable  purposes  to  any  person  or  community.  Furthermore,  de- 
nominational or  sectarian  institutions,  corporations,  or  associations 
are  also  denied  assistance. 

Neither  of  these  sections  has,  in  practice,  prevented  appropriations 
to  privately  managed  concerns.  Section  17  is  rendered  of  no  effect  by 
a  gentlemen's  agreement  that  appropriations  for  charitable  institutions 
as  reported  by  the  appropriation  committees  shall  not  be  opposed.  A 
kind  of  legislative  courtesy  prevails.  Only  occasionally  is  there  any 
opposition  and  then,  in  some  instances,  the  bills  are  referred  back  to 
the  committees.40  If  explanation  of  some  unusual  increase  or  of  a  grant 
to  a  new  institution  is  demanded,  consideration  of  the  bill  is  sometimes 
postponed.  Opposition  is,  however,  infrequent.  As  one  representative 
put  it  "  ...  none  of  us  want  to  vote  against  any  appropriation 
bill.  .  .  "41  Another  member  boasted  that  there  was  no  man  in  the 
state  who  would  do  more  than  he  to  aid  the  "charities"  of  the  state." 

17  Thorpe's  Constitutions,  Vol.  V,  p.  3128. 

38  See  supra,  Chapter  V,  pp.  133-134.  Compare  Fleisher,  Pennsylvania's  Appro- 
priations to  Privately  Managed  Charitable  Institutions.  Pol.  Sci.  Quar.  Vol.  XXX, 
pp.  15-26. 

89  Thorpe's  Constitutions,  Vol.  V,  p.  3128. 

40  Fleisher,  A.  Pennsylvania's  Appropriations  to  Privately  Managed  Charitable 
Institutions.  Pol.  Sci.  Quar.  Vol.  XXX,  pp.  15-26. 

«  Mr.  John  R.  K.  Scott,  Legislative  Journal  (1913),  p.  4342,  col.  1. 


224  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

He  went  on  to  say  that  he  would  consider  it  a  dereliction  of  duty  on  his 
part  to  obstruct  the  passage  of  appropriations  in  their  favor.42 

It  might  be  thought  that  such  occasional  utterances  should  be  re- 
garded as  examples  of  oratorical  extravagance  or  as  sarcastical  remarks 
proceeding  from  political  disappointement  were  they  not  substantiated 
by  the  actual  practice  of  the  legislature  in  passing  bills.  On  May  28, 
1913,  the  House  convened  at  3  P.M.  and  after  diposing  of  much  business, 
the  record  of  which  fills  sixteen  pages  of  the  Legislative  Journal,  they 
passed  without  discussion  forty-seven  appropriation  bills  on  third  read- 
ing.43 There  then  ensued  a  discussion  of  some  length  concerning  the 
forty-eighth  bill.  And  after  that  the  House  took  a  recess  at  6:45  P.M.44 
Each  of  the  forty-seven  bills  was  passed  by  a  vote  of  199  to  0,  the 
ayes  and  noes  being  required  by  the  constitution.45 

The  constitutional  majority  is  thus  obtained  without  opposition. 
Furthermore,  it  is  evident  on  the  face  of  the  record  that  the  roll  could 
not  have  been  called  on  all  these  bills  and  the  votes  recorded  in  the  short 
time  that  elapsed.  The  explanation  of  such  an  expedition  of  public 
business  is  found  in  the  statement  of  Mr.  Fleisher  that  "In  these  in- 
stances, the  first  name  on  the  roll  was  called  and  the  house  shouted 
aye."46  The  provision  of  the  constitution  that  the  ayes  and  noes  be 
called  on  bills  on  final  passages  is  thus  evaded.  But  this  is  not  after  all 
so  significant.  It  is  far  more  important  that  no  member  cared  to  protest 
against  the  passage  of  any  of  these  appropriations.  As  has  already  been 
pointed  out,  it  is  unusual  for  the  judgment  of  the  committees  to  be 
questioned. 

That  part  of  Article  III,  Section  18,  which  prohibits  appropriations 
for  charitable  or  benevolent  purposes  to  any  person  or  community  or 
to  denominational  or  sectarian  institutions  has  never  received  judicial 
interpretation,  and  it  is  probable  that  the  exact  meaning  of  the  section 
has  never  been  understood  by  the  people  of  the  state. 

In  1873,  before  the  present  constitution  had  gone  into  effect,  a 
pamphlet  appeared  in  which  some  criticisms  were  advanced  against 

42  Mr.  Fow,  Legislative  Record  (1899),  p.  1786. 

43  Legislative  Journal,  pp.  3635-3652. 

44  Idem,  p.  3655,  col.  1. 

45  Article  II,  Section  4. 

46  Fleisher,  A.  Pennsylvania's  Appropriations  to  Privately  Managed  Charities. 
Pol  Sci.  Quar,  Vol.  XXX,  p.  31.   Mr.  Fleisher  referred  in  this  quotation  to  the  gen- 
eral practice  of  the  General  Assembly. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  225 

it.47  The  writer  severely  criticized  Sections  17  and  18  of  Article  III 
because  they  were  not  sufficiently  definite.  What  did  the  terms  "  per- 
son" and  "community,"  as  used  in  Section  18,  include?  Was  an  in- 
incorporated  charitable  institution  a  person?  If  so,  appropriations  for 
charitable  institutions  not  owned  by  the  state  were  completely  forbid- 
den.48 Again,  what  was  a  sectarian  institution?  Did  the  control  of 
an  institution  by  church  authorities  make  it  "sectarian"  in  the  meaning 
of  the  constitution?  The  writer  of  the  pamphlet  was  of  the  opinion 
that  no  appropriation  could  be  made  to  any  private  charitable  institution 
after  the  new  constitution  went  into  effect.49 

There  is  evidence  that  the  Board  of  Public  Charities  also  believed 
that  the  effect  of  Section  18  would  be  to  prevent  further  appropriations 
for  the  assistance  of  orphanages  established  and  controlled  by  religious 
organizations.  The  board  memorialized  the  constitutional  convention 
not  to  include  Sections  17  and  18  because  the  restrictions  they  contained 
would  prohibit  appropriations  to  this  class  of  private  charities.50 

The  first  case  in  which  the  provisions  of  section  18  were  invoked  to 
prevent  an  appropriation  was  that  of  Lincoln  University.  This  institu- 
tion was  so  clearly  under  denominational  control  that  the  state  Superin- 
tendent of  Public  Instruction,  acting  on  the  advice  of  the  Attorney 
General,  refused  to  issue  a  warrant  in  its  favor.51 

For  a  few  years  after  1874  grants  to  hospitals  and  to  orphanages 
(exclusive  of  amounts  paid  to  those  that  supported  soldiers'  orphans) 
ceased  entirely.  But  they  began  slowly  to  increase  during  the  decade 
1880-90.  It  is  evident,  however,  that  the  provisions  of  Article  III, 
Section  18,  were  looked  upon  as  restricting  such  appropriations.  In 
1885  the  Board  of  Public  Charities  refused  to  approve  the  application 
of  St.  Agnes  Hospital  of  Philadelphia,  for  $20,000  assistance  "  ...  to 
extend  its  usefulness"  because  it  was,  in  their  opinion,  a  sectarian  insti- 
tution. The  board  reported,  "This  [institution]  being  under  the  control 
of  a  religious  denomination,  is  not,  under  the  constitution,  privileged 
to  receive  state  aid,  hence  the  approval  requested  must  be  denied."52  In 
this  case  the  legislature  appears  to  have  followed  the  recommendation 

47  Price,  Eli  K.    Some  Objections  to  the  Proposed  Constitution. 
"Idem,  p.  6. 
"Idem,  p.  7. 

to  Report  (IS13),  pp.  lix-bdx. 
61  Supra,  Chapter  VII,  p.  195. 

MLeg.  Docs.  (1884-85),  Report  of  the  Board  of  Public  Charities  on  Applications 
for  State  Aid,  p.  25. 


226  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

of  the  board  and  no  appropriation  was  made.  Unfortunately  the  board 
did  not  lay  down  rules  for  determining  when  an  institution  was  sectarian 
or  denominational. 

During  the  latter  part  of  the  decade  1880-90  grants  to  hospitals  and 
orphanages  multiplied.  How  the  prohibitions  of  the  constitution  were 
avoided  is  not  entirely  explained.  It  may  be  supposed  tht  some  of  these 
concerns  were  not  under  the  control  of  any  denomination  and  that 
Section  18  did  not  apply  to  them.  Some,  on  the  other  hand,  made  a 
pretense  of  being  undenominational  by  placing  upon  their  boards  of 
trustees  persons  who  were  not  members  of  the  denomination  that  actually 
dominated  these  boards.53 

In  recent  years,  some  of  the  orphanages  and  hospitals  receiving  state 
aid  were  clearly  denominational  and  sectarian  in  the  ordinary  meaning 
of  those  words.  Mr.  Fleisher  has  reported  instances  in  which  institutions 
were  entirely  controlled  and  managed  by  the  members  of  a  particular 
sisterhood  in  whose  name  all  the  property  was  held.54  In  other  instances 
the  religious  teaching  within  the  subsidized  institutions  was  limited  to 
representatives  of  the  protestant  denominations.  One  concern  that 
received  state  aid  limited  its  benefactions  to  Jews. 

As  has  been  stated,  the  constitutionality  of  the  present  system  of 
grants  to  privately  managed  charitable  institutions  has  not  been  (i.e. 
as  late  as  1916)  passed  upon  by  the  supreme  court  of  the  state.65  It 
would  be  very  difficult  to  put  an  end  to  the  present  system  by  invoking 
the  provisions  of  Article  III  of  the  constitution  against  the  appropriations. 
It  must  be  assumed  that  the  majority  of  the  people  of  the  state  is  favor- 
able to  the  present  arrangements  if  the  action  of  the  legislature  and  the 
absence  of  wide-spread  agitation  against  them  are  good  indications. 
In  order  that  the  decisions  of  courts  should  be  effective  against  the 
present  policy  of  the  General  Assembly,  they  would  have  to  be 
sweeping  and  inclusive  in  their  scope. 

Now  the  constitution  does  not  prohibit  appropriations  to  all  private 
institutions  of  a  charitable  character,  but  only  to  those  that  are  sectarian 

53  Joint  Legislative  Committee  on  Charities  and  Corrections,  1891,  Senate  Journal 
(1891),  p.  804. 

"Fleisher,  A.  Pennsylvania's  Appropriations  to  Privately  Managed  Charities. 
Pol  Sci.  Quar.  Vol.  XXX,  pp.  33-34. 

"At  various  times,  the  question  has  been  widely  discussed  among  those  who 
advocate  making  the  appropriations  in  a  more  systematic  manner.  On  one  occasion, 
an  action  at  law  to  test  the  validity  of  the  appropriations  was  contemplated.  How- 
ever, nothing  was  done,  probably  because  the  legal  advice  obtained  by  the  men  who 
planned  the  action  was  not  favorable. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  227 

or  denominational.  As  the  first  step  in  combatting  the  grants,  it  would 
be  necessary  to  attack  one  or  more  appropriation  acts  making  sub- 
ventions to  charitable  institutions.  And,  since  the  courts  would  not 
take  cognizance  of  irregularities  in  legislative  procedure  such  as  have 
been  described,  the  only  ground  upon  which  the  unconstitutionality 
of  the  appropriations  could  be  urged  would  be  the  sectarian  or  denom- 
inational character  of  some  of  the  hospitals  and  homes. 

The  whole  question  would  turn  upon  the  meaning  of  the  words 
"sectarian"  and  " denominational"  as  found  in  Article  III,  Section  18, 
of  the  constitution.  The  only  cases  in  which  the  courts  of  the  state  have 
been  called  upon  to  decide  upon  the  meaning  of  the  prohibitions  against  the 
appropriation  of  public  funds  for  the  support  of  sectarian  institutions 
have  involved  the  employment  of  members  of  religious  orders  as  teachers 
in  the  public  schools.  In  a  leading  case,  it  was  decided  by  a  court  of 
original  jurisdiction  that  the  payment  of  public  funds  as  compensation 
to  such  teachers  was  not  in  violation  either  of  Section  2,  Article  X,  or 
Section  18,  Article  III.  When  the  case  was  brought  before  the  supreme 
court  on  appeal  the  decision  of  the  lower  court  was  sustained.56 

In  deciding  this  case,  the  judge  of  the  lower  court  said,  "The  plain 
and  obvious  meaning  of  the  2d  section  of  Article  10  and  of  the  18th  section 
of  Article  3,  is  that  money  raised  by  compulsory  taxation  for  the  support 
of  the  public  schools  or  other  public  purposes  shall  not  be  used  for  the 
propagation  or  encouragement  of  the  doctrines  of  any  religion  or  church — 
as  the  term  is  commonly  used — since  that  would  be  a  diversion  of  the 
money  from  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  raised,  and  in  direct  violation 
or  Article  1,  Section  3,  of  the  constitution.  .  .  ,"57  The  court  said 
further  that  the  prohibitions  of  the  constitution  were  against  the  appro- 
priation of  funds  for  the  support  of  institutions  and  schools  "under  the 
control  or  management  of  some  particular  sect  and  organized  for  the 
purposes  of  such  sect.  .  .  .  "58  The  lower  court  held  that  the  employ- 
ment of  members  of  a  Catholic  sisterhood  to  teach  in  a  public  school  did 
not  make  it  a  sectarian  school  within  the  meaning  of  the  constitution.69 

In  the  same  case,  the  plaintiffs  in  the  original  suit  asked  the  court 
to  issue  a  permanent  injunction  against  the  use  of  a  public  school  building 
by  the  members  of  a  Roman  Catholic  sisterhood  for  the  purpose  of  impart- 
ing instruction  in  the  doctrines  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  This 

89  Hysong  v.  School  District,  164  Pa.  629. 

*7  Ibid.    These  are  the  words  of  the  opinion  as  quoted  by  the  Supreme  Court. 

88  Idem,  p.  642. 

89  Idem,  p.  648-649. 


228  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

injunction  the  court  granted  saying  that  the  use  of  the  building  for  this 
sort  of  religious  instruction  was  in  violation  of  the  sections  of  the  con- 
stitution cited.60 

It  is  obvious  that  the  portions  of  the  opinion  of  the  lower  court  that 
have  been  given  are  far  from  decisive  with  respect  to  appropriations  to 
hospitals.  In  the  first  place,  the  statements  of  the  court  were  not  made 
in  a  case  involving  the  grant  of  funds  to  a  private  institution.  The 
schools  are  public  while  the  hospitals  and  other  institutions  that  receive 
subsides  are  private  concerns.  In  the  second  place,  two  sections  of  the 
constitution  were  being  interpreted  and  it  is  impossible  to  determine  the 
meaning  the  court  attached  to  the  works  contained  in  Article  III,  Sec- 
tion 18,  which  is  the  only  one  that  might  be  invoked  to  prevent  the 
General  Assembly  from  granting  money  to  privately  managed  charitable 
institutions.  Finally,  insofar  as  the  case  involved  the  use  of  the  school 
building  for  religious  instruction,  it  was  not  reviewed  by  the  supreme 
court. 

But  even  though  the  supreme  court  should  at  some  future  time  decide 
that  the  legislature  had  no  authority  to  assist  with  money  any  institution 
that  is  owned  or  controlled  by  a  religious  or  sectarian  organization  or 
body,  the  effect  upon  the  grants  would  not  be  important  unless  the  legis- 
lature should  consent  to  abandon  the  present  system.  It  would  be 
possible  in  most  cases  for  the  legislature  to  observe  the  letter  of  the  law 
and  yet  continue  the  appropriations.  Corporations,  a  minority  of  whose 
directors  were  laymen  or  perhaps  non-members  of  the  church  or  sect 
really  controlling,  could  be  organized  to  take  over  the  hospitals  and 
orphanages.  These  institutions  would  not  be  operated  for  the  propaga- 
tion of  any  particular  doctrine  or  creed,  nor  would  they  be  controlled  by 
any  sect  or  religious  order.  If  the  present  system  is  ever  discontinued 
or  modified,  it  will  be  with  the  consent  and  co-operation  of  the  people 
acting  through  the  legislature  and  not  in  spite  of  them. 

THE  EFFECT  OF  THE  SUBVENTION  POLICY  UPON  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF 
STATE  INSTITUTIONS 

To  a  certain  extent  the  privately  managed  charitable  institutions 
that  the  state  subsidizes  duplicate  the  services  provided  by  state  insti- 
tutions. This  is  true  in  the  case  of  the  semi-private  asylum  at  Dixmont, 
several  organizations  for  combatting  tuberculosis,  and  the  institutions 
for  epileptics  and  the  feeble  minded.  But  in  these  instances  the  duplication 

60 164  Pa.  652. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  229 

is  more  apparent  than  real,  since  both  state  and  private  agencies  are  not 
adequate  to  meet  the  demands  made  upon  them. 

The  state  institutions  are  of  three  classes.  In  the  first  class  are  the 
asylums  for  the  insane  and  feeble  minded,  and  the  prisons  and  reforma- 
tories. To  commit  a  person  to  an  asylum  or  to  sentence  him  to  prison 
requires  the  authority  of  the  state,  and  that  authority  is  further  neces- 
sary to  restrain,  to  discipline  and  to  punish  criminal  offenders.  Hence, 
prisons  and  reformatories  for  adults  are  universally  state  institutions.61 
In  the  case  of  reformatories  for  children,  the  same  argument  applies, 
but  with  less  force,  because  these  institutions  partake  largely  of  the 
nature  of  schools  and  because  the  guardianship  of  children  is  frequently 
committed  to  private  persons. 

The  state  is  also  the  logical  custodian  and  guardian  of  the  indigent 
insane.  Here  again,  restraint  and  deprivation  of  liberty  are  usually  neces- 
sary. But  a  more  important  reason  is  the  indefinite  period  of  care  and 
treatment  required.  The  state  is  the  only  agency  that  can  with  assur- 
ance undertake  to  provide  this  in  all  cases.  Finally,  the  weight  of 
authority  now  asserts  that  the  indigent  insane  are  likely  to  receive  better 
care  in  the  larger  more  elaborate  institutions  such  as  the  state  alone  has 
been  able  to  provide  than  in  smaller  local  and  private  asylums.62  Another 
class  of  defectives  that  requires  care  and  restraint  for  an  indefinite  period 
includes  the  feeble  minded  and  the  epileptics.  In  the  case  of  these 
defectives,  as  in  that  of  those  commonly  called  "insane,"  the  state  has  a 
two-fold  duty:  it  is  bound  by  the  humanitarian  principles  for  which  it 
stands  to  alleviate  suffering  and  misery,  and  it  is  also  bound  by  principles 
quite  as  strong  to  protect  itself. 

That  the  violent  insane  should  be  restrained  is  a  proposition  to  which 
all  would  agree.  Public  opinion  has  not  as  yet,  however,  given  full 
assent  to  the  equally  important  proposition  that  a  large  proportion  of  the 
epileptics  and  the  feeble-minded  should  be  restrained,  or  at  least  sub- 
jected to  custodial  care.  But  such  opinion  is  gaining  ground  as  the 
heritable  character  of  certain  types  of  feeble-mindedness  becomes  more 
fully  established.  With  the  growth  of  the  demand  for  custodial  insti- 
tutional care  for  a  large  proportion  of  the  feeble-minded,  the  state  will 

61  This  includes,  of  course,  county  and  municipal  prisons. 

62  See  infra,  p.  234.     It  is  not  asserted  that  private  asylums,  hospitals  or  sanitoria 
cannot,  or  do  not  provide  excellent  treatment  for  all  types  of  mental  disease.     But 
these  institutions  are  not  usually  open  to  those  whose  estates  or  relatives  cannot  pro- 
vide ample  remuneration.    The  problem  that  confronts  society  is  how  best  to  deal  with 
the  indigent  insane. 


230  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

have  a  much  larger  burden  of  expense  to  bear.63  How  large  an  expendi- 
ture would  be  necessary  to  provide  institutional  care  for  this  class  of 
defectives  cannot  at  present  be  estimated  since  no  census  of  the  class  has 
ever  been  undertaken. 

In  so  far  as  the  state  government  recognizes  responsibility  for  chari- 
table relief  and  for  correctional  institutions,  its  first  duty  is  to  provide 
reformatories  for  adults,  hospitals  and  custodial  care  for  the  insane, 
epileptics  and  feeble-minded,  and  reformatories  and  training  schools 
for  neglected  and  delinquent  children.  These  services  are  vitally  im- 
portant for  the  entire  community,  and  since  no  other  agency  can  now  be 
relied  upon  to  undertake  the  work,  the  state  must  do  it,  if  it  is  to  be  well 
done,  or,  in  many  cases,  at  all. 

The  second  class  of  persons  who  are  likely  to  require  charitable 
assistance  is  composed  of  the  sick  and  mained  who,  because  of  their  physi- 
cal disabilities  or  for  other  reasons,  are  unable  to  pay  for  treatment. 
Institutions  ministering  to  this  class  include  hospitals,  sanitoria  for 
tuberculosis  and  homes  for  those  afflicted  with  disabling,  incurable 
diseases.  Institutional  and  extra-institutional  assistance  of  a  permanent 
or  a  temporary  character  is  also  frequently  provided  for  those  who  are 
unable  to  earn  enough  to  maintain  themselves.  In  general,  paupers  and 
indigent  cripples  and  incurables  are  looked  after  in  Pennsylvania  by  the 
local  poor  authorities.64  The  aged  and  the  incurables  are  also  assisted 
by  private  institutions  some  of  which  receive  state  aid.  The  indigent 
sick  may  find  free  treatment  either  at  the  expense  of  the  local  govern- 
ments or  in  private  hospitals.  The  latter  are  liberally  subsidized  by 
the  state. 

Moreover,  the  state  supports  ten  hospitals  for  persons  injured  in  the 
coal  mines.  In  1914  these  hospitals  reported  receipts  of  $337,662  from 
state  appropriations,  and  $46,912  from  patients  and  their  friends.65 
These  hospitals  were  established  because  it  was  asserted  that  facilities 
for  speedy  treatment  of  those  injured  in  the  mines  were  not  adequately 
provided  by  private  hospitals.  The  statistics  just  cited  show  that  in 

63  One  of  the  principal  reasons  for  confining  the  feeble-minded  in  institutions  is 
to  prevent  them  from  propagating  children,  a  proportion  of  whom  is  likely  to  inherit 
some  form  of  insanity  or  feeble-mindedness.    This  argument  is,  of  course,  strongest 
in  the  case  of  women  of  child-bearing  age. 

64  For  a  statement  of  the  development  and  present  status  of  poor  relief  in  Penn- 
sylvania, see  Heffner's  History  of  Poor  Relief  Legislation  Pennsylvania,  1682-1913. 

65  The  latter  class  of  payment  was  presumably  for  treatment.     Board  of  Public 
Charities,  Report  (1914),  p.  210. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  231 

nearly  all  cases  the  patients  are  treated  free  of  charge.  The  amount 
appropriated  by  the  state  is,  however,  not  large  when  compared  with  the 
total  of  all  its  expenditures  for  charitable  relief. 

In  addition  to  reformatories,  asylums  for  the  insane  and  feeble- 
minded, and  the  hospitals  for  injured  miners,  the  state  also  supports 
sanitoria  for  tubercular  patients.  In  1916  over  $1,300,000  was  expended 
for  this  service  alone.66 

A  third  class  of  charitable  institutions  is  made  up  of  schools  for  the 
blind,  the  deaf  and  dumb,  and  for  soldiers'  orphans.  The  schools  for 
defectives,  of  which  there  are  now  six,  are  privately  owned  and  managed, 
but  all  receive  the  larger  part  of  their  revenue  from  the  state.  Thus,  in 
1914,  the  four  schools  for  the  deaf  and  the  deaf  and  dumb  reported  total 
receipts  of  $348,723  exclusive  of  loans.  Of  this  amount  $303,621,  or 
87.1  per  cent,  was  derived  from  the  state.67  In  the  same  year,  the  two 
schools  for  the  blind  reported  receipts  amounting  to  $143,205  of  which 
$97,863,  or  68.4  per  cent,  was  paid  by  the  state.68 

The  state  contributes  to  the  support  of  these  schools  in  two  ways. 
It  pays  a  fixed  amount  annually  for  each  child  who  is  a  resident  of  Penn- 
sylvania and  whose  relatives  are  not  charged  with  the  cost.69  It  also 
makes  appropriations  for  equipment  and  to  meet  deficits  incurred  by  the 
various  institutions.70  The  feeble  minded  and  epileptics  are  cared  for 
in  part  by  the  state  and  in  part  by  a  privately  owned  and  managed  insti- 
tion  for  children.71  The  state  maintains  two  institutions,  one  at  Polk 
and  one  at  Spring  City.  The  private  institution  received  $152,171  from 
the  state  in  1914,  and  $118,287  from  other  sources,  including  $53,575 
from  pay  pupils.72 

Privately  managed  institutions  that  care  for  and  educate  the  deaf, 
blind,  or  feeble-minded  children  receive  the  larger  part  of  their  appro- 
priations in  accordance  with  the  number  of  children  maintained  at  state 
expense.  The  state  pays  an  annual  amount  per  child,  which  is  deter- 

M  Aud.  Gen.  Report  (1916),  p.  599. 

*7  From  the  reports  of  the  schools  as  published  in  the  Report  of  the  Board  of  Pub- 
lic Charities  (1914),  pp.  134,  145, 155, 162. 
68 /(few,  pp.  168,  177. 

69  In  theory  the  state  appropriation  is  supposed  to  apply  only  for  the  support  of 
indigent  children. 

70  See  statement  as  to  state  appropriations  in  1913,  for  the  school  for  the  deaf  at 
Scranton,  Board  of  Public  Charities,  Report  (1914),  p.  162,  and  for  the  school  for  the 
deaf  at  Philadelphia,  idem,  p.  155. 

71  The  Pennsylvania  Training  School  for  Feeble-Minded  Children,  at  Elwyn. 

72  Board  of  Public  Charities,  Report  (1914),  p.  115. 


232  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

mined  by  the  legislature.  Furthermore,  the  state  Board  of  Charities  is 
given  power  to  determine  whether  the  service  is  adequate  and  to  prescribe 
standards.  These  institutions  are  therefore  called  "  semi-state  institu- 
tions" to  distinguish  them,  on  the  one  hand,  from  privately  owned  hospi- 
tals and  orphanages  which  receive  lump-sum  grants,  and,  on  the  other, 
from  state  owned  and  operated  concerns. 

Soldiers'  orphans  are  now  cared  for  in  special  institutions.  In  1914 
the  state  disbursed  $101,422  and  in  1916  $89,663  on  account  of  these 
schools.73  Practically,  no  duplication  results  from  the  existence  of  these 
schools  and  the  privately  managed  institutions  since  the  state  schools 
are  open  only  to  a  particular  class.  Nor  is  there  any  duplication  in  the 
matter  of  the  reformatories  for  juvenile  offenders,  although  the  western 
institution  is  state  owned  while  that  near  Philadelphia  is  classed  as  a 
semi-state  institution. 

Now  one  of  the  criticisms  that  has  been  advanced  against  the  Penn- 
sylvania system  of  subventions  is  that  the  money  which  should  have  been 
used  for  the  development  of  state  institutions  has  been  appropriated  for 
the  use  of  private  concerns.  In  1901  a  committee  of  the  National  Con- 
ference of  Charities  and  Corrections,  in  reporting  on  state  subsidies  to 
charity,  made  the  following  statement:  "It  is  evident  that  in  Penn- 
sylvania enormous  amounts  are  expended  yearly  for  things  of  doubtful 
public  utility,  while  for  lack  of  funds,  the  state  never  has  provided  ade- 
quately for  the  insane,  the  feeble-minded,  and  various  other  classes.  "74 
This  general  statement  of  the  committee  is  amply  supported  by  the 
reports  of  the  Board  of  Public  Charities.  In  1899,  the  General  Agent 
of  the  board  reported  that  although  the  legislature  had  been  frequently 
appealed  to,  in  previous  years,  to  make  more  liberal  appropriations  for 
asylums  for  the  insane  and  feeble-minded,  it  had  failed  to  make  accom- 
modations for  these  classes  more  nearly  adequate.75  At  this  time,  the 
treasury  of  the  state  was  far  from  prosperous.  But  in  spite  of  that  fact, 
appropriations  for  privately  managed  hospitals  and  the  like  continued 
to  amount  to  over  $2,000,000  each  biennium.76  Yet  it  was  the  opinion 

73  Aud.  Gen.  Report  (1914),  p.  600. 

74  Twenty-eighth  National  Conference  of  Charities  and  Corrections  (1901),  p.  129. 
The  committee  was  composed  of  the  following  men:  Levi  L.  Barbour,  Jeffrey  R. 
Brackett,  Homer  Folks,  Philip  C.  Garrett,  Henry  Hopkins,  Alexander  Johnson,  and 
Frank  A.  Fetter,  chairman. 

75  Board  of  Public  Charities,  Report  (1899),  pp.  8  ff. 

76  See  table  on  p.  219  supra. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  233 

of  the  state  board  that  the  number  of  separate  hospital  organizations 
was  considerably  greater  than  required.77 

The  reports  of  the  board  for  subsequent  years  also  contain  references 
to  the  neglect  of  the  defective  classes  by  the  legislature.78  In  1902  the 
state  was  badly  in  need  of  an  asylum  for  the  criminal  insane  and  although 
the  matter  had  been  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  legislature  several 
times,  no  appropriation  had  been  made  for  such  an  institution.79  More- 
over, the  General  Agent  of  the  board  declared  that  so  great  was  the 
overcrowding  of  institutions  for  defectives,  such  as  the  blind,  the  deaf 
mutes  and  the  feeble-minded,  that  he  often  had  difficulty  in  advising 
authorities  where  to  place  dependents  belonging  to  these  classes.80 

The  lack  of  accommodations  for  the  indigent  insane  was  emphasized 
by  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Lunacy  in  the  same  year  (1902). 
"From  every  state  hospital,"  they  wrote,  "comes  the  cry  of  over- 
crowding, and  the  almost  supplication  for  much  needed  depletion." 
Wards  were  crowded  by  day;  every  available  foot  of  floor  space  in  corri- 
dors was  utilized  for  for  sleeping  quarters;  while  in  the  dormitories  beds 
were  so  closely  placed  that  proper  sanitation  was  almost  out  of  the 
question.81 

It  was  alleged  that  funds  for  building  additional  asylums  were  not 
to  be  had.  This  excuse  the  Committee  on  Lunacy  deemed  weak,  since 
the  General  Assembly  found  ample  funds  for  the  support  of  private 
hospitals.  The  committee  gave  full  recognition  to  the  responsibility  of 
the  state  to  classes  other  than  the  insane,  but  they  deprecated  lavish 
appropriations  to  local  hospitals  while  the  insane  were  so  inadequately 
provided  for.82  In  their  opinion  it  was  time  the  state  eliminated  some 
of  these  appropriations  and  devoted  the  funds  thus  released  to  needs 
more  pressing  and  to  services  that  affected  the  community  at  large. 
Furthermore,  they  asserted  that  many  of  the  new  hospitals  were  unneces- 
sary and  served  only  to  duplicate  existing  accommodations.83  During 
the  years  1902-1915  additional  accommodations  for  the  insane  and  the 
feeble-minded  were  provided.  But  even  now  facilities  are  inadequate.84 

77  Report  (1899),  p.  5. 

78  See  their  Reports  (1901),  p.  4;  (1902),  pp.  1-3. 

79  Board  of  Public  Charities,  Report  (1902),  p.  3. 
"Idem,  Report  (1902),  p.  4. 

81  Idem,  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Lunacy,  p.  8. 

82  Ibid. 

83  Idem,  Report  (1902),  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Lunacy,  p.  8. 

84  Idem,  Report  (1915),  p.  271. 


234  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

In  1914  a  voluntary  organization  (The  Public  Charities  Association 
of  Pennsylvania)  undertook  an  investigation  of  the  care  and  treatment 
of  the  indigent  insane.  This  organization  secured  the  services  of  Dr.  C. 
Floyd  Haviland  of  the  Kings  Park  State  Hospital,  of  New  York,  to  carry 
on  the  investigation.  Dr.  Haviland  found  that  hi  none  of  the  county  or 
municipal  asylums  were  the  facilities  for  treatment  of  the  insane  equal 
to  those  of  the  state  hospitals.  He  says,  "The  only  results  obtained  in 
the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  which  have  been  even  approximately  satis- 
factory have  been  in  State  hospitals."85  This  did  not  mean,  of  course, 
that  the  insane  received  and  cared  for  by  local  asylums  were  maltreated 
or  that  they  did  not,  in  many  instances,  receive  excellent  custodial  atten- 
tion. What  was  lacking  was  accurate  diagnosis  and  treatment  by 
physicians  who  had  made  a  special  study  of  mental  disorders.86 

Dr.  Haviland's  conclusion,  after  a  thorough  study  of  the  asylums, 
both  state  and  local,  was  that  only  in  the  state  hospitals  could  completely 
satisfactory  treatment  be  given,  and  that,  if  the  purpose  of  the  community 
was  to  effect  the  largest  possible  percentage  of  recoveries,  all  the  insane 
should  be  committed  to  state  institutions.  But  this  course  of  action  was 
impossible  since  these  hospitals  were  already  filled  to  capacity  and  in 
certain  cases  overcrowded.87 

The  report  condemned  the  county  care  system  whereby  the  state 
assists  the  localities  hi  maintaining  local  asylums.  In  only  one  respect 
was  county  care  apparently  superior  to  state  hospitals:  it  was  less 
costly.  But,  in  Dr.  Haviland's  opinion,  this  was  due  to  inferior  treatment 
and  poorer  facilities  in  local  institutions.  As  he  put  it,  "  Mere  custodial 
care  costs  less  than  does  remedial  medical  treatment."88 

The  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Lunacy  for  1915  contained  a  few 
pages  of  comment  on  the  report  of  Dr.  Haviland  in  which  the  attempt  was 
made  to  minimize  the  evils  that  his  report  had  revealed.89  The  Secretary 
of  the  Committee,  by  whom  the  comment  was  written,  admitted  that 
Dr.  Haviland's  work  had  been  thoroughly  and  carefully  done,  but  he 
believed  that  the  lack  of  adequate  treatment  in  county  asylums  might 
be  overcome  by  certain  reforms  in  the  conduct  of  those  institutions  and 
by  increasing  the  capacity  of  state  hospitals.  For  the  most  part  his 
recommendations  are  concerned  with  the  complete  separation  of  the 

85  The  Treatment  and  Care  of  the  Insane  in  Pennsylvania,  p.  82. 

88  Idem,  p.  90. 
87  Idem,  p.  12. 
MIdem,  p.  88. 

89  Board  of  Public  Charities,  Report  (1915),  pp.  279-284. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  235 

county  asylums  from  the  county  almshouses.  The  asylums  should  in 
all  cases  have  separate  buildings  and  separate  boards  of  managers,  and 
no  local  asylum  should  be  permitted  to  receive  patients  under  the  county 
care  act  until  it  had  complied  with  the  requirements  established  by  the 
Board  of  Public  Charities.  In  reply  to  Dr.  Haviland's  criticism  of  the 
medical  treatment  of  patients  in  a  majority  of  the  local  hospitals  the 
secretary  of  the  Committee  on  Lunacy  proposed  that  each  local  asylum 
should  be  in  charge  of  a  competent  physician.  He  thus  admitted  that 
the  criticism  was  well-founded  and  that  the  insane  in  some  asylums  had 
not  had  proper  medical  care.  Moreover,  the  secretary  was  of  the  opinion 
that  closer  co-operation  between  the  local  and  the  state  asylums  was 
necessary  in  order  that  acute  cases  in  the  early  stages  of  mental  disease 
might  be  properly  diagnosed  and  transferred  to  the  central  asylums 
where  the  chances  of  their  recovery  would  be  greatly  enhanced.90 

On  the  whole,  the  admissions  of  the  secretary  amounted  to  a  con- 
fession of  inefficiency  and  mal-administration  in  the  management  of  the 
local  asylums.  He  was  unwilling,  however,  to  recommend  the  aboli- 
tion of  the  system,  preferring  to  advocate  a  reform  of  the  existing  arrange- 
ments. Moreover,  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Lunacy,  Mr. 
Isaac  Johnson,  in  his  report  to  the  Board  of  Public  Charities,  in  1915, 
strongly  defends  this  county  care  system.91  He  asserts  that  the  con- 
dition of  the  insane  hi  the  local  almshouses  has  been  steadily  improved 
during  the  preceding  twenty  years,  and  that  the  distribution  of  the 
chronic  insane  in  small  asylums  is  preferable  to  assembling  them  hi  large 
numbers  in  state  institutions. 

If  the  state  should  undertake  to  provide  hospital  facilities  for  all  the 
indigent  insane,  the  present  appropriations  would  undoubtedly  prove 
insufficient.  This  would  necessitate  either  an  increase  of  state  revenue, 
or  an  increase  of  the  proportion  of  the  cost  now  borne  by  the  coun- 
ties, or  a  reduction  of  state  expenditure  for  other  objects.  When  the 
first  state  asylum  was  established,  the  counties  committing  indigent 
insane  to  it  were  charged  with  the  entire  cost  of  maintaining  them,  the 
state  providing  only  the  material  plant.92  Later,  in  1893,  the  removal  of 
all  insane  to  state  hospitals  was  made  mandatory  and  the  state  agreed 
to  pay  one-half  of  the  cost  of  their  maintenance.93  At  the  present  time, 
the  state  pays  $2.00  a  week  for  the  support  of  insane  in  county  hospitals 

90  Board  of  Public  Charities  Report  (1915),  pp.  283-284. 

91  Idem,  pp.  271-27 '5. 

92  Haviland,  The.  Treatment  and  Care  of  the  Insane  in  Pennsylvania,  p.  9. 

93  Idem,  p.  11. 


236  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

in  the  county-care  system.  It  also  pays  not  more  than  $2.25  per  week 
for  the  maintenance  of  patients  in  state  hospitals.  The  remainder  of 
the  cost  in  the  first  case  must  be  borne  by  the  county.  In  the  latter,  a 
fixed  contribution  per  patient  per  week  is  required  of  each  county.94 

It  seems  unlikely  that  the  counties  will  be  asked  to  contribute  toward 
the  cost  of  building  state  hospitals,  and  it  is  clear  that  if  additional 
hospitals  are  to  be  provided  the  state  must  pay  for  them.  The  tendency 
in  all  branches  of  education,  in  road  building,  and  in  charitable  relief 
is  toward  centralization  and  concentration.  Practically,  the  state  could 
not  require  the  counties  to  pay  a  greater  proportion  of  the  cost  of  main- 
taining the  insane  in  state  asylums. 

But  if  the  state  shall  be  compelled  to  expand  this  service,  it  will 
need  additional  revenue.  Were  other  branches  of  state  expenditure 
stationary,  this  would  not  be  a  difficult  matter.  But  this  is  not  the  case. 
The  first  element  in  the  increasing  cost  of  government  in  Pennsylvania 
consists  of  those  services  included  under  the  head  of  general  government. 
In  1903,  the  cost  of  these  services  was  $1,663,027  and  by  1913  it  had 
increased  to  $2,907,  148,95  or  an  increase  of  74.8  per  cent  in  ten  years. 

The  cost  of  protection  to  persons  and  property  increased  during  the 
same  decade  from  $1,384,558  to  $1,758,987,96  or  a  gain  of  27.0  per  cent. 
In  1903,  the  state  paid  out  $44,608  for  highways  and  in  1913  the  amount 
expended  in  building  and  maintenance  of  roads  was  $1,5  16,361.  97  The 
growth  of  expenditures  for  educational  purposes  as  has  already  been 
shown  has  also  been  very  rapid.98 

Given  the  condition  of  increasing  cost  of  services  now  borne  by  the 
state,  only  two  methods  are  open  for  financing  the  needed  hospitals  to 
care  for  the  insane  and  other  defective  classes:  either  the  state  must 
develop  new  sources  of  revenue  or  it  must  economize  and  restrict  expendi- 
tures for  services  now  performed.  Probably  it  could  do  both.  But 
there  are  no  data  now  at  hand  to  show  where  these  economies  could  most 
profitably  be  effected.  With  a  total  expenditure  amounting  to  over 
$35,000,000  net  (in  1916),  the  state  needs  a  scientific  budget.  It  also 
needs  a  thoroughgoing  investigation  of  state  and  local  revenue  systems  by 
non-partisan  experts  to  determine  whether  the  corporations  which  now 

94  Haviland.     The  Treatment  and  Care  of  the  Insane  in  Pennsylvania,  pp.  11-12. 

95  Bureau  of  the  Census,  Wealth,  Debt  and  Taxation  (1913),  II,  pp.  40,  42. 


97  Ibid. 
98Seesw/>mCh.VII. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  237 

pay  the  greater  part  of  the  state  taxes  are  contributing  more  or  less  than 
should  in  justice  be  demanded  of  them. 

If,  however,  it  be  assumed  that  the  expenditure  for  some  of  the  various 
services  now  supported  by  the  state  could  not  be  reduced  without  serious 
impairment  of  those  services,  it  is  still  true  that  the  revenues  of  the 
state  should  be  devoted  to  those  uses  which  are,  from  the  point  of  view 
of  the  state  as  a  whole,  most  important. 

One  of  the  principal  objections  to  the  grants  to  privately  managed 
hospitals  is  that  the  service  they  render  is  purely  local  in  character  and 
that  the  state,  therefore,  should  not  contribute  to  their  support."  As 
was  pointed  out  in  Chapter  II,  there  is  no  sharp  distinction  between 
local  and  state  services.  But  it  is  safe  to  say  that  when  a  service  can 
be  efficiently  performed  by  local  governments,  when  the  units  of  equip- 
ment are  of  necessity  able  to  serve  only  a  restricted  area,  and  when 
neglect  in  performance  affects  chiefly  the  people  in  the  district  where 
such  neglect  occurs,  that  service  should  be  locally  supported  and  ad- 
ministered. The  service  performed  by  free  hospitals  for  the  sick  and  the 
injured  is  largely  of  the  kind  described.  There  is,  at  the  present  time, 
little  reason  to  believe  that  a  system  of  state  hospitals  would  be  more 
efficient  than  a  large  number  of  locally  administered  hospitals.  And 
there  is  less  reason  to  suppose  that  the  present  haphazard  method  of 
subsidizing  hospitals  conduces  to  anything  like  efficiency.  In  the  second 
place,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  an  ordinary  hospital  serves  a  very  restric- 
ted area.  The  insane,  the  deaf-mutes,  the  blind  and  the  feeble-minded 
can  be  gathered  together  from  large  areas  into  state  institutions.  But 
the  injured  and  those  suffering  from  infectious  and  malignant  diseases 
cannot  in  a  majority  of  cases  be  so  assembled.  Finally,  if  a  local  com- 
munity neglects  to  provide  adequate  accommodation  for  the  indigent 
sick,  the  remainder  of  the  state  is  not  very  directly  affected.  No  doubt 
the  lessening  of  the  productive  power  of  the  people  and  the  dispersion 
of  families  which  may  result  from  the  neglect  of  this  type  of  charitable 
relief  is  far-reaching  in  its  effects,  but  these  effects  are  less  controllable 
than  are  those  resulting  from  neglect  of  education,  of  treatment  for  the 
insane,  and  of  custodial  care  for  defectives. 

We  may  conclude,  therefore,  that  the  care  of  the  insane  and  of  the 
defective  classes  is  a  function  that  the  state  should  perform  before  it 
undertakes  to  establish  or  to  aid  ordinary  hospitals.  In  Pennsylvania 

99  See  for  example  Board  of  Public  Charities,  Report  (1902),  Report  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Lunacy,  p.  8.  No  objection  was  so  frequently  mentioned  to  the  writer  by 
people  in  the  various  parts  of  the  state  with  whom  he  disrussed  the  subsidy  system. 


238  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

the  legislature  has  seen  fit  to  spend  very  large  sums  for  the  support  of 
such  hospitals  when  it  is  the  opinion  of  the  Committee  on  Lunacy,100 
and  of  an  independent  expert  that  present  provision  for  the  insane  is 
inadequate.  Only  in  this  sense  have  grants  to  privately  managed  chari- 
ties caused  neglect  of  state  institutions.  But  there  can  be  little  doubt 
that  the  influence  of  the  grants  to  hospitals  has  been  to  restrict  the 
appropriations  for  services  that  are  peculiarly  adapted  to  performance 
by  the  state  and  that  are  state-wide  in  importance. 

GRANTS  FOR  PERMANENT  IMPROVEMENTS 

A  relatively  large  proportion  of  the  amounts  appropriated  to  aid 
private  charities  has  been  devoted  to  making  permanent  improvements. 
This  has  been  especially  true  in  the  case  of  hospitals.  The  objections 
to  this  sort  of  grant  are  as  serious  as  they  are  obvious,  unless  the  state 
takes  measures  to  secure  reimbursement  if  the  property  is  converted  to 
non-charitable  uses.  To  put  a  concrete  case :  Suppose  that  the  General 
Assembly  should  appropriate  $10,000  to  a  private  hospital  or  orphanage 
for  the  purpose  of  constructing  or  aiding  in  the  construction  of  a  new 
building.  Now  the  funds  thus  received  cannot  properly  be  used  except 
to  provide  free  treatment  for  those  unable  to  pay.101  But  it  is  a  difficult 
matter  in  many  cases  to  determine  whether  a  hospital,  which  has  re- 
ceived large  amounts  to  assist  it  in  building  and  in  purchasing  euqipment, 
is  rendering  an  equivalent  service.  Formerly  it  was  possible  for  an 
institution  that  had  received  aid  in  making  permanent  improvements  to 
refuse  to  take  charity  patients  in  subsequent  years.102 

State  appropriations  could  thus  be  converted  to  private  uses.  In 
1911,  however,  an  act  was  passed  which  made  all  appropriations  for 
structures  or  other  permanent  improvements  liens  upon  the  structure 
and  the  real  estate  upon  which  the  improvements  were  erected.  No 
interest  was  to  be  charged  by  the  state,  but  if  the  institution  sold  the 
real  estate  or  converted  the  property  to  purely  private  uses  the  state 
was  entitled  by  the  act  to  collect  the  amount  of  the  appropriation.103 
This  was  also  the  policy  followed  in  the  case  of  the  normal  schools  until 
the  state  came  to  hold  a  large  equity  in  their  property. 

100  See  their  Report,  in  the  Report  of  the  Board  of  Public  Charities  for  1914,  pp. 
265-266. 

101  An  exception  would,  of  course,  be  an  appropriation  to  aid  in  the  clinical  \vork 
of  a  medical  college. 

102  Board  of  Public  Charities,  Report  (1900),  p.  3. 

103  Act  9  June,  1911,  P.L.  p.  736. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  239 

The  act  of  1911  interfered,  however,  with  the  improvement  of  in- 
stitutions because  the  lien  of  the  state  made  it  difficult  to  secure  loans 
by  giving  mortgage  bonds.  So,  in  1915,  another  act  was  passed  which 
made  the  lien  of  mortgagees  who  might  lend  the  institution  money  for 
improvements  superior  to  that  of  the  state.  The  act  provided  that  the 
consent  of  the  Auditor  General  and  of  the  State  Board  of  Public  Charities 
must  be  obtained  before  any  such  mortgage  could  be  given.104  The 
interest  of  the  state  is  thus  fairly  well  safeguarded  against  direct  and  open 
conversion  to  private  uses  of  property  purchased  with  public  funds. 

STATE  SUBVENTIONS  TO  COUNTIES 

The  state  now  assists  the  counties  in  the  maintenance  of  charitable 
relief  with  respect  to  two  classes  of  dependents:  (1)  the  insane,  and  (2) 
indigent  widows  and  abandoned  wives  who  have  dependent  children. 
State  aid  to  counties  for  the  purpose  of  assisting  them  in  the  maintenance 
of  asylums  for  the  insane  is  carried  out  under  the  authority  of  an  act 
of  1897.105 

Under  this  act  21  counties  now  care  for  the  insane,  receiving  $2.00 
per  week  for  each  indigent  patient.  In  1915  there  were  about  8,000 
insane  persons  in  these  local  asylums  while  the  population  of  the  state 
institutions  was  10,876.106 

On  the  whole  the  county  care  system  has  not  worked  well  in  Penn- 
sylvania.107 In  theory  the  State  Board  of  Public  Charities  is  given  power 
to  compel  the  localities  to  provide  equipment  and  treatment  that  shall 
in  its  judgment  be  adequate.  The  penalty  that  the  board  may  inflict 
for  refusal  to  comply  is  the  revocation  of  the  license  of  the  local  institu- 
tion to  conduct  an  asylum.  Such  revocation  would  automatically  cause 
the  withdrawal  of  state  aid.  How  ineffectual  this  check  has  proved  to 
be  has  been  shown  in  Dr.  Haviland's  report. 

By  an  act  of  1913  the  state  undertook  to  provide  a  pension  for  in- 
digent widows  and  abandoned  mothers.108  The  act  provided  for  a  board 
of  from  five  to  seven  women  in  each  county  to  act  as  commissioners  or 
trustees  for  the  administration  of  the  provisions  of  the  law.  In  order 
to  make  application  for  a  pension  it  was  required  that  the  applicant 

104  Act  29  April,  1915,  P.L.  pp.  200-202. 

108  Act  25  May,  1897,  P.L.  pp.  83-84.  See  also  an  earlier  act  of  26  June,  1895, 
P.L.  p.  231.  See  also  acts  amending  the  act  of  1897  as  follows:  Act  13  May,  1909, 
P.L.  p.  535  and  Act  25  July,  1913,  P.L.  p.  1355. 

106  Board  of  Public  Charities,  Report  (1915),  pp.  262-273. 

107  See  supra,  pp.  233  ff. 

108  Act  29  April,  1913,  P.L.  p.  18. 


240  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

should  "be  worthy  in  every  way,"  and  that  she  should  show  that  the 
pension  was  necessary  to  enable  her  to  keep  her  children  in  her  own  home. 
The  pension  varied  from  $12.00  per  month,  when  the  mother  had  only 
one  dependent  child,  to  $26.00  when  she  had  three,  and  five  dollars  for 
each  additional  child  above  three.  The  administration  of  the  law  was 
left  entirely  in  the  hands  of  the  local  trustees  who  served  without  pay 
but  who  were  allowed  compensation  only  for  expenses.  The  state  agreed 
to  pay  one-half  of  the  amount  expended  in  any  county  that  accepted  the 
scheme.  The  amount  to  be  disbursed  from  the  state  treasury  was  limi- 
ted, however,  to  $200,000  for  the  two  years  1913-15.  Accepting  counties, 
were  required  to  pay  one-half  of  the  amount  necessary  to  meet  the  cost 
of  the  pensions. 

By  1915  the  plan  had  been  accepted  in  some  counties  but  only  a  part 
of  the  #200,000  had  been  disbursed.  The  law  was  amended  in  that 
year,  the  most  important  change  in  the  act  providing  for  the  appointment 
by  the  governor  of  a  woman  qualified  by  training  and  experience  to  act 
as  State  Supervisor  of  the  system.109  The  evident  purpose  of  the  legis- 
lature hi  providing  for  this  official  was  to  secure  more  control  over  the 
local  boards  of  trustees  and  to  encourage  the  acceptance  of  the  plan 
by  a  larger  number  of  counties.  The  supervisor  is  both  the  organizer 
and  the  administrative  head  of  the  system.  She  is  required  to  travel 
from  county  to  county  to  inspect  the  work  of  the  boards  and  to  make 
uniform  rules  for  their  guidance.  She  is  also  required  to  report  annually 
to  the  State  Board  of  Education. 

The  law  of  1915  changed  the  method  of  distributing  the  subvention. 
By  the  act  of  1913  the  share  of  each  county  was  determined  by  its 
population.  But  the  act  of  1915  created  six  classes  of  counties,  accord- 
ing to  population,  and  divided  the  funds  available  among  them  in  ar- 
bitrary percentages.110  How  this  scheme  will  work  out  in  practice 
cannot,  of  course,  be  ascertained  at  the  present  time. 

109  Act  18  June,  1915,  P.L.  pp.  1038-1044. 

110  Class  I,  counties  having  a  population  of  over  1,000,000;  Class  II,  over  200,000 
and  less  than  1,000,000;  Class  III,  over  100,000  and  less  than  200,000;  Class  IV,  over 
50,000  and  less  than  100,000;  Class  V,  over  25,000  and  less  than  50,000;  Class  VI,  under 
25,000.     Counties  in  Class  I  are  entitled  to  equal  parts  of  30%  of  the  total  appropri- 
ation; those  in  Class  II  to  equal  parts  of  15%;  those  in  Class  III  equal  parts  of  30%; 
those  in  class  IV  to  equal  parts  of  15%;  those  in  Class  V  to  equal  parts  of  7%;  those  in 
Class  VI,  to  equal  parts  of  3%. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  241 

DISTRIBUTION  OF  THE  SUBVENTION  TO  CHARITABLE  INSTITUTIONS 

The  distribution  of  the  subvention  to  private  charitable  institutions 
is  not  made,  at  the  present  time,  according  to  any  rule  or  predetermined 
scheme,  except  in  the  case  of  the  appropirations  to  the  various  semi- 
state  institutions.  The  amount  any  hospital,  home,  or  organization 
shall  receive  rests  primarily  with  the  finance  committees.111  Some  of 
the  forces  that  determine  how  such  an  institution  shall  receive  have 
been  mentioned.  As  near  as  can  be  ascertained  the  following  are  the 
principal  factors  effective  in  fixing  the  grants  obtained  by  various  homes 
and  hospitals:  1)  the  amount  of  the  grant  in  previous  years;  2)  the 
requests  of  the  managers  of  the  various  organizations;  3)  the  apparent 
need  for  these  institutions  in  the  communities  where  they  are  located; 
4)  political  influence  both  of  the  members  of  the  General  Assembly 
and  of  other  influential  citizens  in  the  communities;  5)  the  desire  of 
party  leaders  to  win  or  retain  the  support  of  the  people  within  the  locali- 
ties; and  6)  the  recommendations  of  the  Board  of  Public  Charities. 
How  important  relatively  each  of  these  factors  is  in  any  given  case 
cannot  be  determined.  There  is,  however,  no  evidence  to  show  that 
appropriations  are  made  according  to  any  definite  rules. 

That  such  procedure  in  appropriating  public  funds  is  uneconomical 
and  undesirable  in  many  other  ways  goes  without  saying.  No  doubt 
a  great  many  people  recognize  this  fact  but  as  yet  no  workable  substitute 
has  been  found.  One  reason  that  it  has  not  been  found  is  that  many 
political  leaders  are  well  satisfied  with  things  as  they  are. 

For  several  years  the  Board  of  Public  Charities  has  prepared  a  report 
which  shows  for  each  institution  the  number  of  free  hospital  days,  the 
percentage  of  free  treatment,  the  total  cost  of  free  treatment,  and  the 
amount  received  from  the  state  for  maintenance.  These  data  are 
derived  from  the  books  and  reports  of  the  various  hospitals  which  did 
not  (in  1914)  keep  uniform  accounts.112  According  to  the  report  about 
one-half  of  the  cost  of  the  total  free  days  is  borne  by  the  state.113  But 
in  some  institutions  the  state  pays  practically  the  entire  cost  of  free 
treatment,  in  others  it  pays  less  than  15  per  cent,  while  a  few  hospitals, 
which  have  a  large  number  of  free  beds,  receive  no  state  aid  whatever. 

This  discrepancy  may,  of  course,  be  due  in  some  cases  to  the  ability 
of  institutions  receiving  little  aid  to  take  care  of  themselves.  Wherever 

111  See  supra,  pp.  217  S. 

112  Statistics  Compiled  by  The  Board  of  Public  Charities,  1914. 

113  Idem,  pp.  39-40. 


242  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

this  is  the  case  the  legislature  is  justified  in  refraining  from  giving  them 
large  sums.  The  present  procedure  in  making  the  grants  permits  much 
flexibility,  and  enables  the  state  to  give  liberally  where  the  need  is 
greatest  and  to  withhold  its  aid  where  it  is  less.  Hence  a  hard-and-fast 
rule  in  making  appropriations  would,  from  many  points  of  view,  be  less 
desirable  in  theory  than  the  plan  which  leaves  the  legislature  free  to 
make  exceptions. 

On  the  other  hand,  no  one  has  ventured  to  assert  that  the  comparisons 
and  recommendations  in  the  report  of  the  Board  of  Public  Charities 
are  quite  accurate.  The  board  does  not  have  a  sufficiently  numerous 
staff  to  inspect  with  the  greatest  care  the  numerous  institutions  that 
receive  state  aid.  In  1915  there  were  eleven  members  of  the  board, 
including  the  general  agent  and  secretary.  The  other  ten  members 
are  not  expected  to  devote  a  large  amount  of  their  time  to  the  work. 
The  general  agent  and  four  assistants  and  the  special  agent  performed 
the  major  part  of  the  inspection  work. 

As  has  been  pointed  out114  the  committees  do  not  follow  the  recom- 
mendation of  the  board.  Because  of  this  tendency  proposals  have  been 
made  for  a  system  of  appropriations  based  upon  the  number  of  free 
hospital  days  furnished  in  each  institution.  To  accompany  this  plan 
there  is  usually  a  proposal  for  uniform  accounting  and  closer  inspection 
of  the  hospitals.  Undoubtedly  the  innovations  would  tend  to  prevent 
extravagance  where  it  now  exists  and  would  eliminate  many  of  the  evil 
effects  of  the  present  procedure. 

Another  method  for  determining  the  amount  of  the  subvention  to 
each  institution  is  also  frequently  suggested.  Since  a  considerable 
degree  of  flexibility  is  desirable,  a  maximum  payment  per  patient-day  might 
be  determined  upon.  But  in  case  the  hospital  did  not  require  that 
much,  in  case  private  philanthropy  and  generosity  largely  provided  for 
free  accommodations,  the  payment  could  be  reduced.  Now,  of  course, 
the  committees  would  be  unable  to  obtain  accurate  data  upon  which  to 
base  a  judgment  in  this  matter  unless  the  Board  of  Public  Charities 
should  be  armed  with  the  power  to  prescribe  and  to  enforce  a  uniform 
system  of  accounting.  In  1913  the  board  was  given  power  to  require 
uniform  accounts  of  all  institutions  receiving  state  aid.115  The  same 
act  also  gave  the  board  the  authority  to  employ  such  experts  and  clerks 
as  might  be  necessary.116  But  the  penalty  attached  to  the  refusal  of 

™  See  supra,  p.  217. 

116  Act  1  May,  1913,  P.L.  p.  153. 

™  Idem,  p.  151. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  .    243 

any  institution  to  follow  the  requirements  of  the  board  in  the  matter  of 
accounts  is  not  all  that  could  be  desired,  for  the  law  merely  states  that 
in  such  a  case  the  board  shall  not  recommend  any  aid.  But  the  legislature 
could  still  make  the  appropriation.  Perhaps  a  self-denying  ordinance 
will  follow  later. 

The  application  of  this  scheme  to  homes  for  the  aged,  for  the  blind, 
and  for  other  destitute  classes  and  to  orphanages  would,  of  course,  be 
much  less  difficult  than  to  hospitals.  In  the  former  cases  the  population 
is  more  permanent  and  the  service  rendered  is  simpler,  and,  therefore, 
the  determination  of  costs  is  much  easier  than  in  the  case  of  hospitals. 

SHOULD  THE  SUBVENTION  TO  PRIVATE  CHARITABLE  INSTITUTIONS 
BE  DISCONTINUED? 

As  was  shown  in  the  first  section  of  this  chapter,  the  last  twenty -five 
years  has  witnessed  a  steady  growth  of  the  subvention  to  private  charitable 
institutions.  Along  with  the  increase  in  the  total  has  also  come  in- 
creasing complexity.  New  kinds  of  institutions  have  been  added.  The 
latest  addition  is  a  special  subsidy  for  hospitals  that  have  or  shall  have 
psychopathic  wards.117  It  might  appear,  therefore,  that  any  discussion 
of  the  advisability  of  discontinuing  these  grants  was  purely  academic. 

Protests  against  the  policy  have,  however,  appeared  from  time  to 
time  both  in  the  utterances  and  reports  of  state  officials  and  in  the  pub- 
lications and  propaganda  of  voluntary  organizations.  In  1897  the 
Auditor  General  protested  against  the  entire  subvention  system  as  leading 
to  waste  and  irresponsible  expenditure.118  Men  of  the  medical  profession 
have  at  times  freely  criticised  the  system.119  The  committee  of  the 
National  Conference  of  Charities  and  Corrections  on  State  Supervision 
and  Administration  has  reported  against  the  system.120 

The  principal  arguments  against  the  present  procedure  are  as  fol- 
lows: 1)  that  the  funds  appropriated  are  often  wasted  or  misapplied; 

2)  that  unwise  appropriations  have  multiplied  institutions  unnecessarily; 

3)  that  the  state  should  not  appropriate  funds  to  persons  or  corporations 
when  it  does  not  have  control  over  the  application  of  such  funds;  4)  that 

117  Act  9  June,  1911,  P.L.  p.  855. 

118  Report  (1897),  pp.  xxi-xxii. 

119  See  Statements  of  Dr.  H.  W.  Cattell  in  Pennsylvania  Medical  Journal,  Vol. 
XIII,  (1910),  pp.  276-277;  also  of  Dr.  W.  L.  Estes,  idem,  pp.  273-274;  also  the  paper 
read  by  Dr.  J.  B.  Roberts  at  a  meeting  of  the  Pennsylvania  Medical  Association, 
entitled,  State  Appropriations  to  Hospitals  not  under  State  Control.     What  Penn- 
sylvania is  Doing.    Idem,  pp.  253  ff. 

120  30th  Annual  Conference  (1903),  p.  365. 


244  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

institutions  for  the  insane,  the  feeble-minded  and  for  criminals  have  been 
neglected  in  favor  of  the  politically  more  useful  subsidies;  5)  that  the 
grants  are  used  for  political  purposes  of  an  undesirable  kind;  6)  that  the 
subsidy  system  discourages  private  giving;  7)  that  money  obtained  from 
the  state  by  the  hospitals  and  other  institutions  is  not  so  carefully  guarded 
as  funds  derived  from  private  contributions  and,  therefore,  many  who  are 
able  to  pay  are  treated  without  charge;  8)  that  the  hospitals,  orphanages, 
and  homes  supply  local  needs  and  should,  therefore,  be  locally  supported. 

Now  it  is  obvious  that  the  first  five  of  these  objections  apply  to  the 
subventions  as  they  are  administered  in  Pennsylvania  at  the  present 
time.  If  the  state  should  put  its  budget  into  scientific  form  and  should 
arm  the  Board  of  Public  Charities  with  greater  power  these  evils  could 
be  eliminated.  The  sixth  objection — that  the  subsidies  discourage  pri- 
vate giving — has  not  been  sufficiently  substantiated  by  facts  to  warrant 
its  consideration  at  the  present  time. 

The  last  two  objections,  however,  apply  to  all  subventions  to  pri- 
vately managed  institutions  of  the  types  subsidized,  no  matter  how  well 
administered.  To  a  certain  extent  the  pauperizing  effect  of  the  subven- 
tions could  be  done  away  with  by  more  careful  supervision,  but  the  fact 
would  still  remain  that  funds  derived  from  the  state  would  be  less  care- 
fully safeguarded  against  bogus  charity  cases.  The  last  objection,  when 
elaborated,  develops  into  the  general  proposition  that  money  collected 
by  taxation  from  the  entire  state  should  not  be  expended  for  the  benefit 
of  particular  localities. 

This  general  statement  may  be  subdivided  into  two  more  specific 
objections.  In  the  first  place  it  is  said  to  be  inequitable  to  favor  certain 
localities  by  making  large  grants  for  their  benefit  while  other  communities 
receive  little  of  the  benefit  of  the  state's  liberality.  The  homes,  the  free 
hospitals,  and  the  various  organizations  for  social  reform  are  most  num- 
erous in  the  populous  industrial  centers,  while  the  farming  communities, 
which  have  fewer  types  of  classes  requiring  public  assistance  and  in  which 
these  classes  are  not  concentrated,  have  very  few  such  institutions. 

.  This  objection  is  not  wholly  sound  since  many  lines  of  state  activity 
benefit  particular  classes  and  communities  more  than  they  do  the  whole 
body  of  the  population  within  the  commonwealth.  This  is  true  of  agri- 
cultural schools  and  of  experimental  stations.  It  is  true  of  commissions 
to  regulate  the  services  and  charges  of  gas,  electric  lighting,  and  water 
companies,  of  the  navy,  and  of  municipal  fire  departments.  But  the 
principle  that  the  state  in  our  system  of  government  should  confine  its 
activities  to  services  of  state-wide  benefit  and  interest  is  a  sound  one. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  245 

The  second  minor  proposition  is  that  local  governments  or  local 
voluntary  organizations  can  best  administer  purely  local  affairs.  But 
if  the  state  aids  in  supporting  local  projects,  it  must  have  some  control 
over  them.  This  may  be  undesirable  in  some  respects,  but  it  is  fiscally 
necessary.  Hence  subventions  to  local  services  should  be  avoided.  But 
a  difficult  problem  is  encountered  when  the  localities  do  not  have  suf- 
ficient revenues  to  finance  all  the  services  that  are  commonly  deemed 
necessary.  The  solution  of  this  problem  arrived  at  in  Pennsylvania  is 
the  subvention.  Now,  if  it  is  true  that  the  local  tax  payers,  who  are 
chiefly  owners  of  real  estate,  are  already  contributing  more  than  their 
share  to  the  support  of  the  government,  it  would  hardly  be  equitable  to 
require  them  to  bear  additional  burdens.  But  this  would  necessarily 
follow  if  the  subsidies  should  be  withdrawn. 

The  persons  who  pay  local  taxes  have  for  many  years  protested 
against  the  exemption  of  corporation  securities  from  local  duties  and 
against  the  exemption  of  all  the  property  used  by  transportation  com- 
panies from  local  taxes.  But  the  vexed  question  whether  the  payers  of 
state  or  of  local  taxes  are  more  heavily  burdened  has  never  been  settled. 
Nor  is  it  likely  to  be,  until  a  permanent  non-partisan  tax  commission 
is  given  an  opportunity  to  study  the  facts  carefully  for  a  period  of  years. 

A  certain  number  of  people  desire  to  see  all  subsidies  to  privately 
managed  institutions  discontinued,  without  substitution  of  local  assis- 
tance. They  assert  that  the  larger  cities  have  municipal  hospitals  and 
that  all  counties  maintain  almshouses  in  which  the  aged  poor  and  other 
paupers  can  be  cared  for.  Moreover,  it  is  asserted  that  if  state  aid 
should  be  withdrawn,  private  giving  would  supply  the  funds  to  continue 
as  much  free  service  as  is  desirable.  The  examples  of  Illinois,  Massa- 
chusetts and  Ohio  are  cited  to  show  that  state  aid  is  unnecessary.  This 
argument  from  example  is  indeed  a  strong  one,  but  it  is  not  conclusive 
because  the  reply  is  easily  made  that  Pennsylvania  makes  better  pro- 
vision for  her  dependants  than  do  these  states.  Here  again  we  have  only 
assertion  and  counter-assertion  with  insufficient  data  upon  which  to 
base  conclusions. 

It  must  be  conceded,  however,  that  the  subsidy  system  as  adminis- 
tered in  Pennsylvania  has  many  undesirable  aspects  and  the  first  five 
objections  cited  seem  to  be  well  substantiated  by  fact.  The  first  step, 
therefore,  in  the  program  of  reform  is  to  remove  the  evils  that  are  admitted 
not  to  be  inherent  in  the  system.  The  program  which  might  profitably  be 
followed  was  indicated  many  years  ago  by  Warner  after  a  study  of  the 
subsidies  of  the  District  of  Columbia.  "At  its  best,"  he  wrote,  "the 


246  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

government  must  attend  to  three  things.  First,  on  behalf  of  the  poor 
as  well  as  the  taxpayers,  it  must  provide  for  thorough  inspection  of  sub- 
sidized institutions,  and  the  systematic  auditing  of  these  accounts.  This 
work  cannot  be  done  by  grand  juries,  or  legislative  committees,  or  ex- 
officio  inspectors,  who  may  from  time  to  time  thrust  their  inexperienced 
noses  into  matters  which  they  know  nothing  about.  The  work  of  in- 
spection must  be  done  by  some  thoroughly  experienced  and  otherwise 
suitable  administrative  officer,  who  is  definitely  responsible  for  the 
thoroughness  of  his  work.  Second,  the  state  must  keep  in  the  hands  of 
its  own  officers  the  right  of  deciding  what  persons  shall  be  admitted  to 
the  benefits  for  which  it  pays,  and  how  long  each  person  may  continue 
to  receive  those  benefits.  If  it  pays  for  beds  in  a  hospital  one  of  its  own 
officers  should  have  entire  control  of  admitting  and  discharging  the 
patients  cared  for.  This  is  necessary  in  order  that  there  may  be  some 
gauge  of  indigency,  and  some  assurance  that  the  gauge  will  be  used. 
Third,  subsidies  should  only  be  granted  on  the  principle  of  specific  pay- 
ments for  specific  work.  When  any  one  of  these  three  conditions  is 
lacking,  the  policy  of  subsidy  granting  is  necessarily  pernicious."121 

In  short,  the  first  and  most  necessary  step  is  to  bring  about  better 
control,  and  after  that  has  been  accomplished  and  after  investigations 
have  been  made  to  settle  controverted  points,  it  will  be  possible  to  secure 
data  upon  which  to  decide  the  advisability  of  discontinuing  the  grants. 

121  American  Charities,  1st.  ed.  p.  353. 


APPENDIX  TABLE  I 

SUBVENTIONS  FOR  EDUCATION  AND  TO  CHARITABLE  INSTITUTIONS,  1826  TO  1843' 
(in  thousands  of  dollars) 


Year2 

Education 

Charitable  Institutions 

Common 
Schools 

Academies 
and 
Seminaries 

Colleges 

Deaf-mutes 

The 
Blind 

House 
of 
Refuge 

Orphanages 

1826 
1827 
1828 
1829 
1830 
1831 
1832 
1833 
1834 
1835 
1836 
1837 
1838 
1839 
1840 
1841 
1842 
1843 

2.0 
7.0 
3.0 
2.0 

2.0 
6.0 
13.3 
8.4 
8.4 
5.8 
5.5 
3.0 
17.0 
10.5 
8.5 
14.0 

8.0 
8.0 
7.5 
6.3 
5.4 
5.3 
2.3 
4.8 
9.9 
7.7 
3.9 
26.7 
20.9 
9.8 
10.0 
10.3 
11.3 
11.4 

5.0 

2.5 
2.5 

29.53 
146.3 
553.3 
363.4 
316.4 
328.9 
295.3 
247.6 
272.7 

3.0 

3.0 
.5 
.5 
.5 
20.04 
49.0 
39.4 
50.0 
46.1 
48.3 

5.0 

10.7 
11.3 
3.2 
14.3 
10.6 
8.1 
4.1 
8.1 
8.4 
7.2 

5.0 
5.0 
5.0 
5.0 
5.0 
5.0 
5.0 
5.0 
5.0 
5.0 



2.0 

2.0 
2.0 
2.0 

1  These  data  are  taken  from  the  Reports  of  the  Auditors  General  and  of  the  State 
Treasurers.     No  total  is  given  in  the  table,  since  the  data  are  not  accurate  and  because 
the  amount  of  the  grants  to  local  governments  for  buildings,  for  highways,  etc.  cannot 
be  ascertained. 

2  The  fiscal  year  began  Nov.  1  until  1840  when  the  date  was  changed  to  Dec.  1. 

3  This  figure,  which  is  taken  from  the  report  of  the  Auditor  General,  is  probably 
inexact. 

4  From  1838  to  1843  the  subvention  to  academies  and  seminaries  includes  the 
subvention  to  colleges. 

247 


B  I 

9   I 

PP          CJ 

js  ^ 

p 


Ed 


1    a 

S  o  5 

c^      Q 


- 

til 

u«  " 


^  .2 


3  S3 


CN    8    S    S    So    §    S 

O    CN    TH    CN    TH    CS    O 


CN    ON    O 


o    o    ••*  cs  f*    cs 


IO    O    O    PC  CN    O    O 

cs  10  O  f-  'O  rj*  r— 

VO^  CN^  rj^  -r-^  00^  CS^  O^ 

cs"  PC"  r}^  PC"  PC"  CN"  PC~ 


00    CN    PC    •<*    CS    CS 
CN    r-5    vO    >O    t^    OO 


* 


CS    ON    CS    t^-    O 

00    O    ON    O    CS 

TH"  oo"  T-T  of  O" 
&™    *    ^    * 


IO    O    IO    1>- 


VOCSCST-llOvOOOOCNOOlOOlO»-tOO 

CS'i-HOOOOCSVOCNCNvO'^OOt^vO'-ilO 
TfPCCSPCVO^-»PCPCiOO'T*'ONVOOOCSt^ 

•«**  cT  T-H^  T^T  T^T  \o~  T-T  c*<r  c^T  CN"  ^-T  PC  PC  ON  PC  o 

CN  CS  *^  *^  *H  *^  CS  *-H  ^-H  r^  ^—H  CS  *— *  PC  CS  CS 


TfiOiOtOlOiOiOlOlOlOlO 

oooooooooocooooooooooo 


248 


CNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCSCN 


CS  CNCNCNCNCNCNCNiOTj<CNCN 


t^.    O    CN    CO 

CN    ON    O    O 
00    Tj<    NO    CN 


^H    O    O 
CN    ^    ^ 


*•• '    OO    ON    co       :   t-- 
"H    IO    CN    CN         :    CO 


88 


fS4,_<*-l_li-i»-«CNCSCNCNCNCNCN 


O    to    CN    CN    CO    CO    *O    *~H 


O^toOtOiO'-tOO'-'COONNOCN'^H 
^  T-I  »— t  ^HCNCOCNtOTt*ON 


s  s 


>    Tt    CN    O 

f=K^S^2o^ 


a  s 


CNNONOcotoCNCOON»-iiO 
CO    *—*    NO    NO    NO    ^    CO    CN    to    oO 


CNCNCNCNCNCNCNCO 


CO    ON    CN    1-1 


T-H        O       I"*       tO 


IO 

OO 


NOONCNOOtO»OONCNONOOO 
ON  t^*  NO  CO  OO  ^H  CO  CN  ^  IO  i™* 
OO^  ^  Tj^  CO^  NO^  ON^  T^  Tj^  CN^  OO^  OO^  CO_ 
OO"  Op"  CN  IO  O  ^f  C^T  ON  *"*"  I-H*  co"  ^ 

^— iNOiOt->-t-»Or-NOCNONTfON 
Tf^iONOoOOO'— 'rfCNTj»lO 


Ot^-OOONO'— ICNCO 
OO    OO    OO    OO    OO    OO    OO    OO 


3 

1 


•s  .2 

ii 


§  I 
?  a 


3  •§ 

*  1 

—T  00~ 

§  2 

I  -s 

C/J  Q 

:§  - 

<^  OQ 

1  .s 

•s  I 

I  4 

1 1 

OJ  T3 

•5  i 

s  s 

2  I 


*    ON 

15 

23 

*o     - 


S    *-       ei 
0.9*9 

i! 

S  t!    £ 

is  -s 

J3     C        « 
CJ  <*> 


M 

II 

II 


S     8    ig   S    _J      . 

3  2  -s-g  I  s 

/— s       /-^»     a  ^H 


^  a"  I 

I  til 

313  I 


-•«*>«*? 


250 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 


TABLE  III  A 

SUBVENTIONS  PAID  FROM   THE  PENNSYLVANIA  STATE  TREASURY  FOR  EDUCATION, 
CLASSIFIED  ACCORDING  TO  PURPOSE,  1874  TO  18931 


Year2 

Total 
payments 

Common 
Schools 

Salary  of 
County 
Superin- 
tendents 

Normal 
Schools 

Colleges3 

All 
Other4 

1874 

$  838,082 

$  656,894 

$  76,661 

$102,182 

$2,345 

1875 

755,896 

605,073 

75,092 

71,731 

4,000 

1876 

1,114,424 

986,598 

71,600 

52,226 

4,000 

1877 

907,320 

734,074 

73,300 

92,946 

7,000 

1878 

789,262 

551,846 

76,978 

152,938 

7,500 

1879 

547,331 

422,946 

80,687 

38,198 

5,500 

1880 

1,710,264 

1,399,940 

81,925 

185,899 

$  40,000 

2,500 

1881 

1,737,617 

1,474,925 

81,709 

132,483 

40,000 

8,500 

1882 

1,089,025 

907,099 

81,814 

94,612 

5,500 

1883 

1,081,810 

919,100 

81,897 

75,313 

5,500 

1884 

1,171,495 

984,830 

83,517 

97,648 

5,500 

1885 

1,191,868 

1,005,598 

85,803 

94,967 

5,500 

1886 

1,151,633 

956,993 

86,297 

102,843 

5,500 

1887 

1,190,997 

959,089 

89,610 

119,048 

17,750 

5,500 

1888 

1,674,382 

1,379,111 

89,599 

140,672 

59,500 

5,500 

1889 

2,129,611 

1,642,764 

88,522 

237,635 

138,940 

21,750 

1890 

2,452,496 

2,004,186 

99,996 

243,782 

57,782 

46,750 

1891 

2,359,988 

1,980,461 

96,916 

207,615 

24,996 

50,000 

1892 

5,513,634 

4,981,486 

93,834 

300,801 

97,463 

40,050 

1893 

5,016,598 

4,391,507 

100,613 

370,388 

91,965 

62,125 

1  From  Reports  of  the  Auditors  General. 

2  Fiscal  year  ending  November  30. 


3  Includes  University  of  Pennsylvania,  State  Agricultural  College,  Philadelphia 
Polclynic  and  College 

4  Includes  School  Journal,  Schools  of  Design,  Pennsylvania  Museum  and  School 
of  Industrial  Art,  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences,  Nautical  School  Ship,  Spring  Garden 
Institution. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 


251 


TABLE  III  B 

SUBVENTIONS  PAID  FROM  THE  PENNSYLVANIA  STATE  TREASURY  FOR  EDUCATION, 
CLASSIFIED  ACCORDING  TO  PURPOSE,  1894  TO  19 161 


Year2 

Total 
Payments 

Common 
Schools 

Salary  of 
County 
Superin- 
tendents3 

High 
Schools4 

Normal 
Schools5 

Colleges 
and 
Univer- 
sities6 

All 
Other7 

1894 

!  6,010,437 

$5,172,826 

$  78,131 

$517,895 

$   214,692 

$26,893 

1895 

6,322^147 

5,761,140 

119,428 

236,394 

179,537 

25,648 

1896 

3,896,827 

3,553,766 

103,745 

213,690 

3,125 

22,501 

1897 

5,066,043 

4,547,664 

109,821 

261,815 

82,851 

63,892 

1898 

6,409,217 

5,673,779 

108,006 

241,798 

337,639 

47,995 

1899 

6,442,378 

5,871,580 

106,657 

245,253 

105,263 

113,625 

1900 

6,661,669 

6,297,292 

109,572 

184,983 

40,322 

29,500 

1901 

7,086,524 

6,776,140 

106,395 

130,642 

36,972 

36,375 

1902 

5,387,392 

4,744,035 

105,572 

$  24,750 

399,588 

63,947 

49,500 

1903 

5,760,704 

5,047,259 

140,716 

23,698 

371,104 

121,466 

56,461 

1904 

4,766,465 

3,993,095 

124,462 

1,476 

395,805 

129,308 

122,319 

1905 

8,725,340 

7,832,553 

100,642 

47,640 

420,648 

221,750 

102,107 

1906 

6,096,495 

5,052,560 

134,284 

149,260 

389,629 

153,637 

217,125 

1907 

6,487,951 

5,410,919 

125,147 

100,000 

533,132 

213,016 

105,737 

1908 

7,969,848 

6,910,429 

163,484 

25,710 

469,305 

250,314 

150,606 

1909 

8,433,791 

6,810,156 

112,256 

199,508 

549,407 

518,147 

244,317 

1910 

8,510,220 

6,764,593 

174,702 

297,109 

445,914 

694,489 

133,413 

1911 

7,560,369 

5,652,439 

151,953 

239,647 

503,125 

868,937 

144,268 

1912 

9,640,523 

7,487,146 

161,745 

286,910 

489,773 

1,026,071 

188,878 

1913 

8,915,282 

6,878,394 

161,447 

295,586 

439,882 

1,031,183 

108,790 

1914 

9,060,096 

6,653,348 

175,878 

252,878 

408,134 

1,498,119 

71,739 

1915 

7,516,708 

4,799,857s 

200,447 

274,48 

522,267 

1,550,127 

169,52910 

1916 

11,247,884 

8,663,175* 

281,170 

273,23 

502,963 

1,363,177 

164,162l° 

1  From  the  Reports  of  the  Auditors  General  for  the  years  given. 

2  For  fiscal  years  ending  November  30. 

3  Includes  payments  for  publishing  the  call  for  a  convention  to  elect  the  county 
superintendents. 

4  Included  the  subvention  for  both  borough  and  township  high  schools  and,  after 
1911,  the  payment  of  the  tuition  of  children  attending  high  schools  in  districts  other 
than  those  in  which  they  reside. 

6  Includes  payments  to  students  attending  normal  schools  and  direct  appropria- 
tions to  the  normal  schools. 

'  Includes  all  payments  made  to  colleges  and  universities;  in  many  cases  probably 
amounts  granted  for  the  maintenance  of  hospitals  in  connection  with  medical  schools. 

7  Includes  subvention  to  such  institutions  as  the  Pennsylvania  Museums  and 


252  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

Schools  of  Industrial  Art  and  other  unclassified  educational  organizations. 

8  Thus  in  the  Reports  of  the  Auditors  General.    The  years  1915  and  1916  should 
be  considered  together. 

9  Contains  amounts  paid  to  normal  schools  taken  over  by  the  state. 

10  Contains  the  amounts  paid  by  the  state  for  the  assistance  of  vocational  schools. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 
I.    BOOKS  AND  MAGAZINE  ARTICLES 

ALLINSON,  EDWARD  PEASE  AND  PENROSE,  BOIES. 

Philadelphia,  1681-1887.    Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies  in  Historical  and 

Political  Science,  Extra  Vol.  II,  1887.    Philadelphia,  1887. 
BIGELOW,  JOHN  (Editor). 

The  Complete  Works  oj  Benjamin  Franklin.  10  vols.     New  York,  1887-1888. 

BISHOP,  AVARD  LONGLEY. 

The  State  Works  oj  Pennsylvania.     New  Haven,  1907. 
BOLLES,  ALBERT  SIDNEY. 

Pennsylvania,  Province  and  State;  A  History  Jrom  1690-1790.     2  vols.  Philadelphia 

and  New  York,  1899. 
BRECK,  SAMUEL. 

Sketch  of  The  Internal  Improvements  Already  made  in  Pennsylvania.    Philadelphia, 

1818. 
BULLOCK,  CHARLES  J. 

Direct  Taxes  and  The  Federal  Constitution.     Yale  Review,  Vol.  DC,  (1900-01), 

pp.  429-449;  Vol.  X,  (1901-02),  pp.  6-29, 144-158. 
CAREY,  MATHEW. 

Brie]  View  oj  the  System  oj  Internal  Improvements  in  Pennsylvania.    Philadelphia, 

1831. 


Miscellaneous  Essays.     (No.  9.  Essay  on  the  Public  Charities  of  Philadelphia.) 

Philadelphia,  1830. 
CUBBERLY,  ELLWOOD  P. 

School  Funds  and  Their  Apportionment.    New  York,  1905. 
DEWEY,  DAVIS  RICH. 

Financial  History  of  The  United  States.    New  York,  1903. 
DILLON,  JOHN  F. 

Commentaries  on  The  Law  of  Municipal  Corporations.  5  ed.  5  vols.   Boston,  1911. 
EASTMAN,  FRANK  M. 

Taxation} or  State  Purposes  in  Pennsylvania.    Philadelphia,  1898. 


The  Law  oj  Taxation  in  Pennsylvania.    2  vols.     Newark,  N.  J.  1909. 
EGLE,  WILLIAM  H. 

Pennsylvania.    Harrisburg,  1876. 
FAIRLIE,  JOHN  A. 

Local  Government  in  Counties,  Towns,  and  Villages.    New  York,  1914. 
FLEISHER,  ALEXANDER. 

Pennsylvania's  Appropriations  to  Privately  Managed  Charitable  Institutions. 

Political  Science  Quarterly,  Vol.  XXX,  (1915),  pp.  14-36. 


State  Money  and  Privately  Managed  Charities.     The  Survey,  Vol.  XXXIII, 
(1914-15),  pp.  110-112. 

253 


254  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

FLEXNER,  ABRAHAM. 

Medical  Education  in  The  United  States  And  Canada.    New  York,  1916. 
GORDON,  THOMAS  F. 

History  oj  Pennsylvania  from  Its  Discovery  by  Europeans  to  The  Declaration  oj 

Independence.    Philadelphia,  1829. 
GOULD,  E.  R.  L. 

Local  Government  in  Pennsylvania.    Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies  in  His- 
torical And  Political  Science,  Vol.  I,  No.  2,  Baltimore,  1883. 
GRICE,  J.  WATSON. 

National  and  Local  Finance.    London,  1910. 
HARLEY,L.  R. 

A  History  oj  The  Public  Education  Association  of  Philadelphia.     Philadelphia, 

1896. 
HASKLNS,  C.  H.  and  HULL,  W.  J. 

History  of  Higher  Education  in  Pennsylvania.     (United  States  Bureau  of  Educa- 
tion, Circular  of  Information  No.  4,  1902.)     Washington,  1902. 
HAVILAND,  C.  FLOYD. 

The  Treatment  and  Care  of  The  Insane  in  Pennsylvania.    Philadelphia,  1915. 
HEFFNER,  WILLIAM  CLINTON. 

History  of  Poor  Relief  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania,  1862-1913.     Cleona,  Pa.  1913. 
HENDERSON,  CHARLES  RICHMOND. 

Modern  Methods  of  Charity.    New  York,  1907 . 
HOLCOMB,  WILLIAM  P. 

Pennsylvania  Boroughs.    Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies  in  Historical  and 

Political  Science.    Vol.  IV,  pp.  129-179.     Baltimore,  1886. 
HOWARD,  GEORGE  E. 

An  Introduction  to  The  Local  Constitutional  History  of  the  United  States.     Johns 

Hopkins  University  Studies  in  Historical  and  Political  Science,  Extra  Vol.  IV. 

Baltimore  1889. 
JAMES,  E.  J. 

The  Public  Economy  of  The  Commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania.     The  Wharton 

School  Annals  of  Political  Science,  No.  1.  (1885).     (The  title  of  this  publication 

was  later  changed  to  Publications  of  The  University  of  Pennsylvania.     Political 

Economy  and  Public  Law.}     Philadelphia,  1885. 
McCLURE,  ALEXANDER  K. 

Old  Time  Notes  of  Pennsylvania.     2  vols.     Philadelphia,  1905. 
McCoRMicK,  HORACE  G. 

Advantages    of    The    Pennsylvania    System.     Pennsylvania    Medical    Journal. 

Vol.  XIII  (1910). 
MAYO,  A.  D. 

The  American  Common  Schools  in  New  York,  New  Jersey,  and  Pennsylvania 

During  The  First  Half  Century  of  The  Republic.  (Report  of  The  [United  States] 

Commissioner  of  Education  for  1895-6,  Vol.  I,  pp.  219-266).    Washington,  1896. 
MERRIAM,  CHARLES  E. 

A  History  of  American  Political  Theories.     New  York,  1903. 
MORTON,  THOMAS  G.  assisted  by  WOODBURY,  FRANK. 

The  History  of  The  Pennsylvania  Hospital.     Philadelphia,  1885. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  255 

PAUL,  J.  L. 

Pennsylvania's    Soldiers'    Orphan    Schools.    Harrisburg,     1877. 
PENNSYLVANIA  STATE  EDUCATIONAL  ASSOCIATION. 

Report  on  Rural  Schools.    Harris  burg,  1914. 

Pennsylvania  Tax  Conference  of  1892. 

Report.    Philadelphia,  1892. 
PRICE,  ELI  K. 

Some  Objections  to  The  Proposed  Constitution.    Philadelphia,  1873. 
PROUD,  ROBERT. 

History  of  Pennsylvania.     2  vols.     Philadelphia  1797-98. 
[PUBLIUS] 

Letter  to  The  Members  of  The  Pennsylvania  Legislature  on  The  Subject  of  The 

Slate  Debt.    By  Publius.    Philadelphia,  1844. 
ROBERTS,  J.  B. 

State  Appropriations  to  Hospitals  not  under  State  Control.    What  Pennsylvania 

is  Doing.     Pennsylvania  Medical  Journal,  Vol.  XIII  (1910) . 
SHEPHERD,  WILLIAM  ROBERT. 

History  of  Proprietary  Government  in  Pennsylvania.    New  York  18%. 
"State  Debts." 

North  American  Review,  January,  1844.    Vol.  LVIII,  pp.  109-157. 
STRAYER,  GEORGE  D.  and  THORNDIKE,  EDWARD  L. 

Educational  Administration.     New  York,  1913. 
"Subsidies." 

A  Report  by  the  Committee  on  The  Division  of  Work  between  Public  and  Private 

Charities.    Proceedings  of  The  National  Conference  of  Charities  and  Corrections, 

1901. 
SWIFT,  FLETCHER  HARPER. 

A  History  of  Public  Permanent  Common  School  Funds  in  The  United  States,  1795- 

1905.    New  York,  1911. 
THORPE,  FRANCIS  NEWTON. 

The  Federal  and  State  Constitutions,  Colonial  Charters,  and  Other  Organic  Laws  of 

The  States  and  Territories.    7  vols.  Washington,  1909. 
TROTTER,  ALEXANDER. 

Observations  on  The  Financial  Position  and  Credit  of  Such  States  of  The  American 

Union  As  Have  Contracted  Public  Debts.    London,  1839. 
URDAHL,  THOMAS  KLINGENBERG. 

The  Fee  System  in  The  United  Stales.     Madison,  1898. 
WARNER,  AMOS  G. 

American  Charities.    Revised  edition,  New  York,  1908. 
WEBB,  SIDNEY. 

Grants  in  Aid:  A  Criticism  And  A  Proposal.    London,  1911. 
WHITE,  THOMAS  RAEBURN. 

Commentaries  on  The  Constitution  of  Pennsylvania.    Philadelphia,  1907. 

WlCKERSHAM,  JAMES  PYLE. 

A  History  of  Education  in  Pennsylvania.    Lancaster,  1886. 
WISCONSIN  TAX  COMMISSION. 

Special  Report  on  The  Finances  of  The  State  Government.     Madison,  1911. 


256  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

WORTHINGTON,  T.  K. 

Historical  Sketch  of  The  Finances  of  Pennsylvania.    Publications  of  The  Ameri- 
can Economic  Association,  Vol.  II,  No.  2. 
YETTER,  J.  M. 

The  Educational  System  of  Pennsylvania.    New  York,  1909. 

II.    PENNSYLVANIA  PUBLIC  DOCUMENTS 

Auditor  General.    Annual  Reports  on  Finances,  1809- 

Board  of  Commissioners  of  Public  Charities.     Annual  Reports,  1869- 

Bureau  of  Statistics.    Annual  Reports,  1-2.  1872-3, 1873-4. 

Charitable  Institutions  of  Pennsylvania  Which  Have  Received  State  Aid  in  1897  and  1898, 
Embracing  Their  History  and  The  Amount  of  State  Appropriations  Which  They  Re- 
ceived. Compiled  under  an  act  of  the  General  Assembly  approved  July  27,  1897, 
by  A.  K.  Pedrick  .  .  .  direction  of  A.  H.  Mylin,  Auditor  General.  Harrisburg, 
1898. 

Charitable  Institutions.  Report  of  Investigations,  Findings  and  Recommendations  of 
the  Legislative  Commission  to  Investigate  the  Various  Charitable  Institutions  of  the 
State  of  Pennsylvania.  Harrisburg,  1907. 

Compendium  And  Brief  History  of  Taxation  in  Pennsylvania.  Compiled  by  W.  P. 
Snyder,  Auditor  General.  Harrisburg,  1906. 

Constitutional  Convention  of  1837-38.  Proceedings  and  Debates  of  The  Convention  of 
The  Commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania,  to  Propose  Amendments  to  the  Constitution, 

(1837-38),  14  vols.  Reported  by  John  Agg,  stenographer  to  the  Convention.  Harris- 
burg  1837-1839. 

Constitutional  Convention  of  1872-73.  Debates  of  The  Convention  to  Amend  the  Con- 
stitution of  Pennsylvania,  (1872-73).  9  vols.  Harrisburg,  1873. 

Corporation  and  Revenue  Laws.  Report  of  The  Joint  Committee  of  The  Senate  and 
House  of  Representatives  of  The  Commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania  to  Consider  and 
Report  Upon  a  Revision  of  The  Corporation  and  Revenue  Laws  of  The  Common- 
wealth. Harrisburg,  (1913?) 

Education.  Report  on  The  Subject  of  Education  In  the  Senate.  (Committee  of  1822) 
Harrisburg,  1822. 

Education.  Report  of  The  Joint  Committee  of  The  Two  Houses  of  The  Pennsylvania 
Legislature,  on  the  Subject  of  A  System  of  General  Education.  Harrisburg,  1834. 

Executive  Documents,  1843- 1885-6. 

House  of  Refuge.    Annual  Reports  of  The  Board  of  Managers,  1828-. 

House  of  Representatives.    Journal  of  The  House  of  Representatives,  1790-. 

Insane.     Report  of  the  Commission  to  Inquire  Into  Conditions  of  the  Insane  Within 

Hospitals.    Harrisburg  (1902?) 

Legislative  Documents,  1854-1885-6.     (Official  reports  made  to  the  legislature.) 

Legislative  Journal,  1854-.  (A  detailed  and  usually  stenographic  report  of  the  pro- 
ceedings and  debates  of  the  two  houses  of  the  legislature.  Title  varies.) 

Official  Documents,  1886-7. 

Pennsylvania  Archives.  First  Series,  12  vols.  Colonial  Records.  Harrisburg,  1852-56. 
— .  Fourth  Series,  12  vols.  (Papers  of  the  Governors,  1681-1902).  Edited 
by  George  Edward  Reed  under  the  direction  of  W.  W.  Griest,  Secretary  of  The 
Commonwealth.  Harrisburg  1900-1902. 

Pennsylvania  Dependents.  Report  and  Recommendations  of  The  State  Dependents  Com- 
mission. Harrisburg,  1915. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  257 

Pennsylvania  Institution  for  The  Instruction  of  The  Blind.     Reports,  1834-. 

Pennsylvania  Institution  for  the  Deaf  and  Dumb.     Reports,  1822-. 

Pennsylvania  Training  School  for  Feeble-Minded  Children.  Reports  of  Directors 
and  Superintendent,  1853-. 

Poor  Laws.  General  Report  of  The  Commissioners  Appointed  to  Revise  And  Codify  The 
Laws  Relating  to  The  Relief,  Care  and  Maintenance  of  The  Poor  in  The  Common- 
wealth of  Pennsylvania.  Harrisburg,  1890. 

Association  of  Directors  of  The  Poor  of  Pennsylvania.     Reports,  1878-. 

Register  General.     Reports,  1790-1808. 

Revenue  Commission  Appointed  by  Act  of  the  Legislature  of  Pennsylvania,  Mar.  25, 
1889.  Report.  Harrisburg,  1890. 

Senate.    Journal  of  The  Senate,  1790-. 

State  Board  of  Education,  Department  of  Public  Instruction,  Bureau  of  Vocational 
Education.  The  Pennsylvania  Child  Labor  Act  and  Continuation  Schools.  Har- 
risburg, 1915. 

State  College.    Reports,  1869-. 

State  Highway  Department.    Reports,  1906-. 

State  Treasurer.    Annual  Reports,  179 1-. 

Supreme  Executive  Council.  Minutes  of  The  Supreme  Executive  Council,  1777-1790. 
Published  in  Pennsylvania  Colonial  Records,  vols.  11  to  15  inclusive.  Harrisburg, 
1852-1853. 

Superintendent  of  Common  Schools.    Annual  Reports,  1835-1874. 

Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction.  Department  of  Public  Instruction.  Annual 
Reports,  1875-. 

III.    PENNSYLVANIA  LAWS 

Charter  to  William  Penn,  and  Laws  of  The  Province  of  Pennsylvania,  1682-1700. 
Harrisburg,  1879. 

Statutes  At  Large  of  Pennsylvania  from  1682-1801,  Compiled  under  The  Authority 
of  An  Act  of  May  19, 1887. 

Session  Laws  1801-1825.    Acts  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Commonwealth  of 
Pennsylvania  1801-1825.      (Published  by  authority  by  different  printers.  Cited  in 
this  essay  as  P.L.) 
Laws  of  Pennsylvania,  1825-.     (Cited  as  P.L.) 

IV.    UNITED  STATES  PUBLIC  DOCUMENTS 

American  State  Papers.  Finance,  Vol.  I.  Secretary  Wolcott's  Report  on  Direct 
Taxes.  Pp.  415-463. 

Statement  in  Relation  To  Foreign  and  Domestic  Debt.  Feb.  24,  1794.  (By  The  Secre- 
tary of  The  Treasury.) 

Tenth  Census.  Report  on  Valuation,  Taxation,  and  Public  Indebtedness  in  The  United 
States  as  Returned  at  the  Tenth  Census.  Washington,  1884. 

Thirteenth  Census.     Wealth,  Debt  and  Taxation,  (1913),  2  vols.     Washington,  1915. 
V.    MAGAZINES  AND  NEWSPAPERS  CITED  WITHOUT  REFERENCE  TO  AUTHOR 

Hazard's  Register  of  Pennsylvania,  Vols.  I-XVI,  1828-1835.     Philadelphia,  1828-1835. 

Lancaster  Morning  News.    Lancaster,  Pennsylvania. 

Pennsylvania  Grange  News. 

Chambersburg,  1904-1908,  1909-, 
Huntingdon,  1908-1909, 

Pittsburgh  Dispatch, 


258  THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 

Philadelphia  Inquirer. 

The  [Philadelphia]  North  American. 

Philadelphia  Record. 

The  [Philadelphia]  Press. 

The  [Philadelphia]  Public  Ledger. 


INDEX 


Academies  and  seminaries,  amounts 
granted  to,  72,  76,247;  control  by  state, 
77;  failure  of  subvention  to,  73-74; 
land  grants  to,  24-27,  73;  subvention  of 
1838  to,  74-75. 

Agriculture,  subventions  for,   204,  248. 

Assessed  value  of  property  and  tax  rates, 
180. 

Audit  and  inspection  of  accounts,  of 
school  officers,  69,  93-96,  184;  of 
county  officers,  33,  34. 

Bank  of  the  United  States,  bonus  received 
from  chartering,  40,  63. 

Board  of  Public  Charities,  act  creating, 
128-129;  opinion  of  general  agent  of  on 
subventions,  129-132. 

Budget,  need  for,  202,  216,  236. 

Canals,  finances  of,  37-43,  80-81. 

Charitable  and  reformatory  institutions 
of  the  state,  213,  218. 

Civil  War,  effect  of  on  subventions  for 
charity,  119,  136. 

Colleges  and  universities,  subsidized  by 
the  state,  24  ff.,  75,77-78,  195-196; 
subsidy  to  criticised,  202. 

Compulsory  school  attendance  laws,  183- 
184. 

Common  schools,  amount  of  subvention 
to  1835-1844,  65-66,  247;  1844-18,  73, 
88,  248-249;  1874-1916,  156,  159,  250- 
251;  attempts  to  establish,  55-57;  atti- 
tude of  people  toward,  in  1834,  61, 
69-72;  about  1845,  90;  in  1914,  168- 
169;  causes  of  increase  of  subvention 
to,  161-163;  control  by  state  officers, 
68-69,  87-88,  153-154;  defects  of,  154; 
distribution  of  subvention  to,  60,  62, 
64,  90,  98-101,  163-170;  effect  of  sub- 
vention on  acceptance  of,  63,  66-72; 
finances  of,  88-91;  92-93,  155-161; 
progress  of  1874-1916,  156, 159;  regula- 
tion of  districts  receiving  subvention 
to,  60,  62,  87,  91,  96,  170;  state  sys- 
tem of  established  in  1834,  59-61; 
waste  of  subvention  to,  173-175. 


Constitution  of  1873,  effect  of  restrictive 
clauses  of,  on  appropriations,  223-234; 
encourages  extra vagent  appropriations, 
216;  interpretation  of  restrictive  clauses 
of  225-228;  provisions  of  concerning 
appropriations  to  private  institutions, 
222-223. 

Control  of  subsidized  institutions  by  the 
state,  29,  31,  34,  48,  52,  54,  68,  75-77, 
97,  110,  179-185,  191. 

Corporation  taxes,  development  of  1844- 
1916,  140-146;  receipts  from  1868- 
1895,  143-146. 

County  care  system  for  insane,  estab- 
lished 239;  Dr.  Haviland's  report  on, 
234-236. 

County  superintendent  of  schools,  ac- 
countability of  local  officers  increased 
by  95;  establishment  of  office  of,  110; 
functions  of  111,  154;  recent  legislation, 
197-198. 

Counties,  functions  of  in  colonial  times, 
12-14;  in  1885,  138-140;  subventions 
to,  32-36,  212. 

Defective  classes,  reasons  for  slow  devel- 
opment of  institutions  for,  54. 

Dickinson  College,  state  subvention  to, 
24,  27-28. 

Education,  legislation  relative  to  in  1824, 
56-57;  lack  of  correlation  of  subven- 
tions for,  200-201;  miscellaneous  sub- 
ventions for,  113;  196-197;  provisions 
for,  in  constitution  of  1776,  23;  in  con- 
stitution of  1790,  43;  state  subventions 
for,  1776-1826,  23-29;  1826-1843,  248; 
1873-1916,  250-251;  summary  of 
conclusions  on  subvention  for,  200-203. 

Farmer's  High  School,  see  State  Agricul- 
tural College. 

Feeble  minded,  institution  for  subsidized 
by  state,  115-116. 

Financial  history  of  Pennsylvania,  periods 


in,  7-8. 


259 


260 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 


Financial  policy  of  the  state,  1776-1826, 
16-19;  22-23;  1826-1844,  37-43; 
1844-1873,  80-86,  1874-1916,  ch.  vi. 

Flexner,  A.  Comment  on  subsidies  to 
hospitals,  221. 

Grant  in  Aid,  definition  of,  20. 

Governmental  functions,  division  of 
between  state  and  localities  in  Penn- 
sylvania, 10-15;  effect  of  division  of, 
on  subventions,  9;  factors  affecting 
division  of,  1-4. 

Haviland,  Dr.  C.  F.  report  on  treatment 
and  care  of  insane  in  Pennsylvania, 
234  ff. 

High  schools,  established  in  Philadelphia, 
75;  in  other  districts,  185;  subvention 
to,  75,  185-186. 

Homes  for  the  aged,  subvention  to,  117. 

Hospitals,  subvention  to,  see  subvention 
to  private  charitable  institutions. 

House  of  Refuge,  subvention  to,  at 
Philadelphia,  52-53,  117,  125;  at 
Pittsburgh,  117,  125. 

Indigent  persons,  classification  of,  43-44. 

Insane,  county  asylums  for,  212,  234-236; 
state  asylums  for,  232-233;  subvention 
to  private  asylum  for,  115. 

Institutions  for  the  blind,  control  by  the 
state,  49;  established,  45;  finances  of, 
48;  subventions  for,  45-49,  117,  213, 
231-233;  247. 

Institution  for  the  deaf  and  dumb,  control 
by  state,  49;  finance  so  of,  48;  incor- 
porated, 31;  subvention  to,  31,  40-45, 
117,  213,  231-232. 

Local  governments,  functions  of,  see 
governmental  functions;  revenues  of, 
149-152. 

Miscellaneous  subventions,  35,  78-79, 
137,  196-197,  204-205. 

National  Conference  of  Charities  and 
Corrections,  adverse  report  of  on  sub- 
ventions to  charitable  institutions, 
243. 

Normal  schools,  academies  and  colleges 
not  substitutes  for,  102;  act  author- 
izing, 103;  amount  of  state  subvention 


to  before  1898,  188;  conditional  aid  to 
students  in,  106,  189,  194;  constitu- 
tional restrictions  on  state  aid  to, 
194-195;  advantages  of  subvention  to, 
189;  distribution  of  subvention  to,  108, 
189;  establishment  of  subvention  to, 
104;  reasons  for  state  purchase  of,  187, 
193;  waste  of  subvention  to,  107-108. 

Orphanages,  early  subvention  to,  50,  247; 
effect  of  Civil  War  on  subventions  to, 
119-120;  public  and  private  compared, 
129-131;  recent  subventions  to,  213. 

Pauper  schools,  28. 

Pennsylvania  Hospital,  early  grant  to,  30. 

Pennsylvania  School  Journal,  111. 

Poor  relief,  a  local  function  in  Pennsyl- 
vania, 29-30. 

Public  lands  of  the  state,  grants  of  to 
academies  and  colleges,  24-26;  portion 
of  set  aside  for  benefit  of  education,  24. 

Rate  bills,  67-68. 

Real  estate,  state  tax  on  repealed,  141. 

Revenue  Commission  (of  1889),  appoint- 
ment and  report,  148. 

Revenue  resources,  changes  in  division 
of  state  and  local,  1844-1873,  141; 
effect  of  separation  of  state  and  local, 
147-148;  division  of  between  state  and 
local  governments  in  colonial  times, 
15;  in  1776,  16,  19;  in  1885,  140-144; 
equalization  of  between  state  and 
localities  by  means  of  subvention,  147- 
152,  162-163,  181;  sources  of  local  147. 

Roads  and  bridges,  state  subvention  for, 
see  highways, 

School  funds,  purpose  of,  56. 

School  fund  in  Pennsylvania,  of  1831, 
58-59;  of  1911,  199. 

School  term,  effect  of  subvention  on 
length  of,  89. 

Soldiers'  Orphans,  schools  for,  122-123. 

State  agricultural  college,  incorporated 
111;  subvention  to,  112,  196. 

State  Board  of  Charities,  act  creating, 
128-129;  favorable  attitude  of  general 
agent  of  toward  subventions,  129-132; 
functions  of  at  present  time,  217-219. 


THE  SUBVENTION  IN  PENNSYLVANIA 


261 


State  debt,  amount  of  in  1791,  18;  in 
1844,  81;  effect  of  on  expenditures, 
1844-1873,  86;  assumption  of  by 
United  States,  17-19;  history  of  1844- 
1873,  81-84. 

State  Grange,  advocated  subventions, 
151,  162. 

State  institutions,  expenditures  for,  215; 
how  affected  by  subventions,  228-234; 
superior  service  rendered  by,  234-237. 

State  revenues,  1826-1842,  39;  amounts 
for  certain  years,  82-85;  development  of 
state  system  of,  86. 

State  superintendent  of  common  schools, 
control  exercised  by,  153;  duties  of,  61. 

Subventions,  classification  of  20-22;  in 
California,  6;  in  England,  4,  7;  in  New 
York  City,  6;  occasions  giving  rise  to, 
4-7. 

Subventions  to  private  charitable  institu- 
tions, amount  of  1826-1843,  247; 
1844-1873,  118-121,  248;  1874-1916, 
212-214;  attitude  of  people  toward, 
222;  causes  for  growth  of,  122-124, 
136,  214-219;  charges  of  corruption  in 
obtaining,  133-135;  criticism  of,  124- 
127;  132,  237,  243-246;  early  instance 


of,  30;  effect  of  Civil  War  on,  119; 
effect  on  private  contributions,  47, 
49,  53;  distribution  of,  136,  241-243; 
for  permanent  improvements,  238-239; 
improper  methods  of  obtaining,  218- 
221;  reform  of  considered,  243-246. 

Surplus  revenue  of  the  United  States, 
Pennsylvania's  share  of,  40;  used  to  aid 
common  schools,  63-64. 

Taxation,  burden  of  state,  91;  state 
revenue  from  for  certain  years,  85;  state 
system  established,  84-85. 

Taxes,  direct  unpopular,  17,  41;  devel- 
opment of  on  corporations,  140-146. 

Teachers,  attempts  to  provide  for  train- 
ing of  in  academies  a  failure,  102;  lack 
of  competent  hi  1838,  102;  minimum 
salary  for  required  by  law,  177-179; 
wages  of,  173-177. 

University  of  Pennsylvania,  early  sub- 
vention to,  24. 

Vocational  education,  state  subvention 
for,  199-200. 

Widows'  pensions,  administration  of, 
239-241 ;  sources  of  funds  for  payment 
of,  240. 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  5O  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.OO  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


OCT  2  1933 


LD  21-100m-7,'33 


YC  07071 


405935 

HJ  a^Q-s" 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


